Let's say we're going to redistrict the USFA sections. Just for the sake of discussion, mind you, until someone gets fed up enough to actually step up to the challenge. So as a mental excercise, what would we need to do to get such a thing accomplished?
Who at the USFA would be the appropriate person to lobby?
Does the USFA membership database have the information available in a format necessary to create a map that shows region densities? Is there anyone in the USFA who could crunch the data to get the job done, or would we have to hire someone else?
What data would we need to look at to come to a (mostly) fair and equitable redistricting plan? -- ex: number of fencers, number of clubs, ratings of those fencers, available refs in the area, etc.
How long would such a project take, and how much would it cost?
And could we get everyone to actually agree to it in the end?
Get everyone to agree? Ha! The likelihood of that is the same as getting a "Monday Night Fencing" show on TV.
Considering how long it took for this year's Super RYC's fiasco to get figured out those kids will be in Vets before Sectionals will be re-configured!
The first thing to do is to figure out exactly what purpose the organization would want from 'Sections'. I think that if restructuring is done then it should be along the same geographic lines as what would be used for the RYC and in fact maybe have an adult version of RYCs. Which is, in turn, similar to some circuits that already exist. These results could then be used for the national qualifications. The sections would have to seriously consider distances as much as possible so that clubs are within reasonable driving distances of their fellow- sectionmates. I view this as being more important than trying to equalize the number of clubs/fencers per section since that can change so much year to year. If good, strong, 'sectional' tournaments develop then fencers know where they can easily drive to to find good competition. Also needing to be thrown into the mix is the strength discrepancy for quals where one section can send 'warm bodies' and the next has a dozen strong As battling for one slot scenario. I'm sure someone can come up with a sliding scale to account for this--or maybe the stronger sections would just have more automatics.
I'd like to see a map of the U.S.A. overlayed with a color scale denoting the member density of any particular area. And then a second map with a similar treatment to show club density. And then a third map with qualified ref density. Etc.
Would provide an interesting perspective of where the USFA's strengths are, and probably led to some logical realignments or shifts here and there.
And like the U.S. Census, the process would need to be repeated every X years to allow for population shifts.
I'd like to see a map of the U.S.A. overlayed with a color scale denoting the member density of any particular area. And then a second map with a similar treatment to show club density. And then a third map with qualified ref density. Etc.
Would provide an interesting perspective of where the USFA's strengths are, and probably led to some logical realignments or shifts here and there.
And like the U.S. Census, the process would need to be repeated every X years to allow for population shifts.
Bah.
The point of the sections isn't to serve as some part of a representative democracy. There are currently divisions in California and the North East that alone probably have more members than some of the smallest sections but that doesn't mean such divisions should be made sections themselves.
Originally Posted by Victor
Let's say we're going to redistrict the USFA sections. Just for the sake of discussion, mind you, until someone gets fed up enough to actually step up to the challenge. So as a mental excercise, what would we need to do to get such a thing accomplished?.
In order to get such a thing accomplished, you need to define what you're trying to accomplish in the first place. Start with the what and why, before diving into the how.
And thank you, Fencer X, for such a productive dismissal of the topic. "Bah," indeed.
I'm not suggesting a "representative democracy" -- although, yes, that's what the US Census is supposed to help accomplish. I mentioned the Census only as an example, because a similar study of our membership distribution could maybe possibly help produce stronger sections and event promotion. THAT would be the general purpose of the project. Too bad you came at the idea immediately with a negative attitude.
I believe that dissolving the sections as administrative bodies completely is considerably more likely than realigning them. Only big hurdle that I see there is that a new system would have to be developed for BoD representation (currently each section has a representative on the BoD). Qualification (DIA, U19) could be pushed back down to the divisional level without much problem.
Then replace the sections with a semi-amorphous regional/super-regional structure similar to what is currently being tested (urm, excuse me, developed) with the kiddies. Shift some qualification paths (and eventually possibly ALL qualification paths, at least for Sum Nats) into the regional system. Basically turn the super-regionals into private (run by divisions rather than national office, not private as in run by individuals/clubs) NAC-lite type events that can be used to qualify one up to the full national event(s).
Membership data by division is available for numbers of fencers (further subdivided by membership type), numbers of clubs, numbers of referees at each level. Creating such a map as you ask for isn't a hard task, merely one that requires someone to take the hour or so to do. The USFA publishes the numbers that you're asking for. Okay, some divisions are geographically large enough that the granularity of population density isn't what you might wish, but it's reasonable to not redraw division lines, but merely reapportion the divisions into sections (once you take as given that doing THAT is worth doing, which I won't stipulate).
But what's the purpose? We already KNOW that the sections aren't equal in size (population or geographic) or strength. They aren't intended to be.
Originally Posted by fencerX
The point of the sections isn't to serve as some part of a representative democracy.
Actually, I'd argue that that is EXACTLY what the point of the sections is. Just because the votes of the sections aren't proportionate to the relative membership levels of the sections doesn't mean that we don't have a representative democracy. We're just more like the senate than the house.
-B :)
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
Actually, I'd argue that that is EXACTLY what the point of the sections is. Just because the votes of the sections aren't proportionate to the relative membership levels of the sections doesn't mean that we don't have a representative democracy. We're just more like the senate than the house.
While that might have been the founding parents original intent, I'd argue that in many sections relatively few members care (or even know) that the section has a representative to the national board.
I'd think it would be a safe bet to say that most of those who answered the poll on sections with "We need the sections and they are great" weren't thinking about sending Paul Soter (or whoever) to the national board.
Members see the point of sections in terms of the objectives of the section, such as:
Objectives
The general purpose of the Section is to promote the Purposes of the USFA in the Territory.
a) It shall regulate and supervise Section circuit tournaments and Section Championships under the rules of the USFA as a Territory.
b) It shall promote interest and participation in the sport of fencing by such activities as the publication of fencing news, the usage of the Section website, the planning of fencing exhibitions, the planning of Section–related competitions, and by providing assistance to schools, colleges, and organizations in the Territory.
Yes, the point of a section, nowadays, is to provide the intermediate steppingstone between the local level competition and the national level competition.
So the concept of a section is still reasonable. The point asked in this thread (redistricting) is whether the administrative boundaries should be recarved to make better sense.
Natural geographical boundaries, such as mountain ranges or rivers, no longer make logical boundaries for administrative purposes. The best place to draw the boundary line is where there is little or no fencing presence.
I also put to you (the general reading audience, not just fencerX) that some geographical locations should be outside of any existing or soon-to-exist section, to be incorporated into a new section if and when the density of fencers in that area becomes viable. (For example, I think parts of Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas could all be considered outside of any reasonable section, so that no section is responsible for attempting to maintain a fencing presence in such areas.)
The few fencers living in such remote areas may qualify to nationals by some other means (petition, auto, or belong the the nebulous "national" division).
That said, I think we can also restructure the section concept for better fencing entertainment. Perhaps we can carve up the fencing demography into eight sections. Each section is allowed to enter X(section) number of fencers in each event at nationals. And there will be one section composite team in each weapon. The final placement of the section team results in each weapon will determine the number of entries to next year's nationals (hence the incentive to do well). So there will be exactly 8 teams in each weapon, run them as two pools of 4, result seeds to DE. It'll be a whole day's fencing for those fencers (approximately 6 hours), but I think the amount of interest and cheering will be just tremendous.
Okay, in the interest of proving once again that I need more work to do, here's a rough map of fencing population density.
Note that I said rough. For reference, the way fencing population density was calculated was the number of USFA members in each division (July 31, 2004 numbers as those are the ones I have available) divided by the geographic land area of the region. Since most divisions follow state lines that means that Nevada (for example) includes all of the land area of Nevada (and yes, I know most of it's desert where no fencers live... deal with it). Best guesstimates for divisions that chop up bits of state.
A few might be a bit off, but this should be good enough for casual use. Not sure how such a map could be useful in redistricting. Nearly all of the high density areas are together, either along the Northeast cordor, or along the CA coast.
Note that the top category is only present in the Northeast corridor (skipping MD, but extending to DC), and Orange County (LA), and NorCal (SF), but is more than 10 times as dense as either of the lowest two categories which are what cover the map. Fencing is still heavily concentrated.
Just for further reference, going off of 2003 numbers (where I already have them nicely split by section), the % of the USFA represented by each section:
NAS 20%
Mid-Atl 15%
PCS 14%
SES 12%
SWS 10%
GLS 8%
RMS 6%
PNW 6%
MW 5%
Metro NYC 3%
I dunno, seems reasonable to me. PNW and RMS are both huge expanses of low fencing density. Metro is rediculously small for a section, but they have incrediably high density and rediculously high strength, so I'm willing to consider it reasonable for them to remain an exceptional section. NAS is significantly larger (# fencers) than the rest, but it's relatively small geographically, and, as someone familiar with the region, I don't believe that it needs subdivision.
MAS is already the second largest. Shifting VA would create another NAS equivalent section, while dropping SES to the level of SWS (although possibly without the strength).
Knowing nothing about the sections and how they operate I could see an argument for merging MW and GL. Would create something roughly equivalent to SWS or SES. Currently MW looks a bit small (# fencers wise I mean).
Anyone have any other changes to speculate about?
I just don't seem much reason to modify things. What we have currently seems reasonable.
-B :)
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
Tangent question: With the exception of Hawaii and Alaska (sorry, guys), how much consideration should we give to travel distance within each section? Should there be a certain range to factor into the geographical center of each section -- for example, no more than 300 miles by car?
Naturally, any particular event within a section might take place at a far greater distance -- a fencer might have to hit the road from one end of the section to compete at a club-sponsored event at the other end. But one would think we could minimize really obnoxious 'gerrymandered' section borders.
How do other non-collegiate, non-professional sports organizations in the U.S.A. structure their organizations to facilitate competition and excellence at the various levels of age and ability?
I personally feel that Sections are extremely important and if managed properly could be an extremely powerful tool for growing fencing in the United States. The potential is the greatest in the areas that currently lack high numbers of experienced competitors/referees/administrators/etc...
Today, we have the case where sections are not qualifying paths to Div 1 Nationals. So why not use them to promote fencing in their area. Unfortunately the current geography of some Sections make this an unrealistic goal.
There are currently sections that fencers would have to drive 20 hours to get from one sectional championships to another. Flying to Regional Competitions? Simply not feasible...
"The potential is the greatest in the areas that currently lack high numbers of experienced competitors/referees/administrators/etc..."-Mr. Epee
I disagree with this statement. I believe the opposite, that the greatest growth will happen in the areas with many fencers and local competition venues mainly because of word of mouth or local advertising, "I know a fencer!, I want to do it too" and "I've seen that club on X street".
Then, when the twenty-something aged fencers move out of the area for jobs, they can promote fencing in any and all ways, maybe even opening clubs. In this way it could grow.
perhaps if the sections were divided up so that you only had to drive, at maximum, 3 hours to get to sectionals. It would require that sectionals be held in the epicenter of the section... but thats not entirely bad. I wouldnt mind if they held sectionals in like... atlanta, every year. Its as close to the middle of the section as possible. It would be pretty stupid to have to fly to sectionals..... I mean, its not even that strong of a tournament. If I'm gonna fly to a tournament, I had damn better well be able to earn points. If going to sectionals zaps my money to go to nationals, then I'm sure as heck not going to go.
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. And from this side only! The flight of a half-man, half-bird. Dinosaurs nuzzling their young in pastures where strip malls should be. Cookies on dowels. All those moment, lost in time. Gone, like eggs off a hooker's stomach. Time to die" -Phil Ken Sebben
"The potential is the greatest in the areas that currently lack high numbers of experienced competitors/referees/administrators/etc..."-Mr. Epee
I disagree with this statement. I believe the opposite, that the greatest growth will happen in the areas with many fencers and local competition venues mainly because of word of mouth or local advertising, "I know a fencer!, I want to do it too" and "I've seen that club on X street".
Then, when the twenty-something aged fencers move out of the area for jobs, they can promote fencing in any and all ways, maybe even opening clubs. In this way it could grow.
Kindly read the rest of this thread, thank you.
My comment was in regards to a stronger sectional heirarchy would mean more centralized competition organization. In areas where there are few capable organizers this would mean less burden on the less knowledgeble (to put it nicely)
perhaps if the sections were divided up so that you only had to drive, at maximum, 3 hours to get to sectionals. It would require that sectionals be held in the epicenter of the section... but thats not entirely bad. I wouldnt mind if they held sectionals in like... atlanta, every year. Its as close to the middle of the section as possible. It would be pretty stupid to have to fly to sectionals..... I mean, its not even that strong of a tournament. If I'm gonna fly to a tournament, I had damn better well be able to earn points. If going to sectionals zaps my money to go to nationals, then I'm sure as heck not going to go.
Uhm, great, until you live in Miami and that becomes an 11 hour drive.
Only way to get the sectionals to be within a 3 hours drive would be to massively increase the number of sections. Excluding Metropolitan NYC, which is an exception in many ways, NO current section has a point in it that's within 3 hours drive of all fencers in the section. NAS and MAS are likely the two smallest sections in the country geographically (again, excluding Metro). Last year I lived close to the geographic center of NAS and had a 6 hour drive to sectionals. I suggest that NAS is certainly NOT too big.
-B :)
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
Someone was asking about other sports. Well, swimming for example, conducts exactly one national tournament, the national championships. To get there you have to qualify from a region, which you qualify for from a local area, which you qualify for from an even smaller area. Their regions are roughly equal to our sections.
I'd like to see a system where regional fencing organizations were responsible for promoting fencing within their jurisdiction, and qualifying a certain number of competitors to the national championships, preferably from a regional circuit of some sort. Perhaps with some system where points earned in a region outside your "home base" could be credited to your qualification from your own region for fencers who live near the boundaries of two (or more) regions.
For DivIA's, it would be the top X number based upon the point standings. For DivII's the top X C and unders. For Div III's it would be the top X number of E and unders.
And I also like the idea of how many your region qualifies be based upon some sort of formula that takes in to consideration performance at the national level.
That's the right idea. Swimming actually has Districts, the Southeasterns (for us) and the Sectionals, before nationals.
The tricky part of the comparison, however. is how simple it is to quantitatively measure things in swimming. You qualify based on a time for an even. Pretty black and white.
I have used tennis as an example in past threads. They have about twice as many "sections" as we do. They have qualifying tournaments which are identified by their national organization and assigned points based on size and level of competition. You then compete to earn points, and the points allow you to qualify to the next level. I think their's is a division/section/national approach. This seems sensible to me.
Originally Posted by oso97
Someone was asking about other sports. Well, swimming for example, conducts exactly one national tournament, the national championships. To get there you have to qualify from a region, which you qualify for from a local area, which you qualify for from an even smaller area. Their regions are roughly equal to our sections.
I'd like to see a system where regional fencing organizations were responsible for promoting fencing within their jurisdiction, and qualifying a certain number of competitors to the national championships, preferably from a regional circuit of some sort. Perhaps with some system where points earned in a region outside your "home base" could be credited to your qualification from your own region for fencers who live near the boundaries of two (or more) regions.
For DivIA's, it would be the top X number based upon the point standings. For DivII's the top X C and unders. For Div III's it would be the top X number of E and unders.
And I also like the idea of how many your region qualifies be based upon some sort of formula that takes in to consideration performance at the national level.
Originally Posted by Victor 
