RYC and RYC Coordinators

[fluidfencer]

Please check the RYC web site (http://www.usfaryc.org) for details on the following:
- Choosing RYC Coordinators for next season
- RYC Coordinator responsibilities
- New guidelines for hosting RYC tournaments

The Super Youth Circuit bid package was previously announced on Fencing.net. That information is on the RYC web site as well.

I have been trying to get this information distributed through the USFA. I can only apologize (again) for the delay in getting it to you.

Please be aware that there is a short deadline (July 15) for submitting nominations for RYC Coordinator positions. Nominations will go through your Division chairperson. The Youth Development Committee will choose RYC Coordinators.

David Arias
Youth Development Committee
205-515-3902

[DHCJr]

Thank you David. This is a very good web site. One thing I did note, they updated the rules specific to Youth. This can be found in the procedures. There is no longer the unenforceble #0 or #2 blade rule. The rule is a maximum of 32.5".

[fluidfencer]

We have Andrea Lagan and Maureen Griggin to thank for the web site. I will ask her/them to add that information to the appropriate place on the web site.

One thing we are planning to add is a FAQs section.

Originally Posted by DHCJr

Thank you David. This is a very good web site. One thing I did note, they updated the rules specific to Youth. This can be found in the procedures. There is no longer the unenforceble #0 or #2 blade rule. The rule is a maximum of 32.5".

[oso97]

Thanks for speedily communicating this to all of us!

[edew]

Originally Posted by fluidfencer

We have Andrea Lagan and Maureen Griggin to thank for the web site. I will ask her/them to add that information to the appropriate place on the web site.

One thing we are planning to add is a FAQs section.

That's Griffin.

[fluidfencer]

yes yes... Sorry Maureen. She has been a big help.

Originally Posted by edew

That's Griffin.

[edew]

I've downloaded and read the application form. It needs fixing. First off, you don't want to determine the coordinators by July 31 for the August 1 through July 31 fencing season. The coordinator for the following season should be determined by January 1 of the current season. (I.e., for the 2005-2006 season, the coordinators should be determined by January 1, 2005.) That way, the coordinator can have time to take over from the prior coordinator, as well as set time-tables to implement programs and plans for the following season.

By August 1, it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to locate suitable venue space, secure hotel accomodations, and arrange schedules to meet existing conflicts. Who wants to even submit an application to be the RYC coordinator, not knowing whether he or she can do his (or her) job come August, because possible spaces are booked, or host clubs decline to hold events, and so on.

But, by having the newly appointed RYC coordinator set by January 1, then there will be an 8-month transition period to allow timely and smooth transition of operations from the existing RYC coordinator to the new RYC coordinator.

One way to help alleviate the multiple variables is to designate certain weekends as possible RYC dates. Then, all RYC coordinators -- those from various regions, as well as new ones taking over for existing ones -- can work off of the same plan. Dates are the most important bit of information. Second will be location. Third will be event scheduling at the events.

Aside from the timing aspect of determining the RYC coordinator, the regions are weirdly gerrymandered. It appears that the folks who determined these regions did so based on roughly equal numbers of fencers in each region. However, I think the primary concern is concentration of fencers and proximity of fencers to the main hub.

For example, the Rocky Mountain region spans from Wyoming down to Border Texas (El Paso, I believe belongs here). Well, that's quite a stretch. It's not the 2-4 hour drive each way. The Midwest region is also quite expansive. But it shouldn't be. The Kansas/OK/Nebraska fencers can make one region and the Illinois/Iowa/Minnesota contingent could make another. And so what if the event sizes are not so big. First off, there's no rule (as far as I know) that requires a fencer to fence within hie or her region. Second, just four years ago, the sizes of the primordial RYCs were probably equally small. And they probably ran rather well because of their smaller sizes.

The thing to do is NOT assign each division to a region. Fencers are not required (again, AFAIK) to fence in their home region, so the region concept is just for rule-of-thumb purposes, for the most part. It's clear that one can identify several major fencing hubs: SF Bay Area, LA, Seattle WA, Portland OR, SLC Utah, Las Vegas (not sure it's a hub for youth fencing, though), NYC, Philadelphia, Boston...

Each of those places can be considered the central hub for a surrounding area. Draw a 2.5 hours' drive radius from an appropriate hub point and that's where all fencers should come from. Note that a 2.5hr radius would imply at most 5 hours of driving each way, which is not necessarily the best way to get to a fencing competition.

Nevertheless, if there are two equally concentrated locations, make each the center of its own regional hub. For example, SF and LA are about 7 hours apart by car. Rather than pick an inappropriate city in the center (say, King City or Bakersfield) as the hub, make SF one regional hub and LA another regional hub.

Fencers living outside any 2.5 hr radius of any regional hub are advised to attend any RYC of their choosing. Probably, they will go to the ones located 2.87 hrs from themselves instead of the next available 4.2 hrs away.

Remember that the whole point of regionalizing is to regionalize: help fencers get good competition within a reasonable distance of travel. It's not to add yet another layer of bureaucratic administrative bodies. We know that the existing administrative bodies are obsolete because of various factors. Most divisions and sections were created when there were fewer than 5000 members in the USFA. Now that the number is just over 20,000. Some divisions cannot handle the excess. Others are dropping because of the lack of fencers who have moved elsewhere. Whatever the case, the static division and section boundaries have some drawbacks.

The solution, when I first joined the RYC program, was to offer flexible boundaries so that the boundaries grow and shrink as determined by the fencers. Tournament organizers try to optimize to get about 15-45 kids in any one event. Some will definitely be smaller and some might be bigger. But it makes no sense to carve out yet another set of boundaries.

I mean, does it make sense that Hawaii belongs to the Southern California Region? There's no possible 2.5 hours of driving to get from Honolulu to Long Beach or Burbank. Hawaii should have its own region. If that means 5-12 fencers in mixed events and probably zero fencers in the Y10 events, then so be it. Running a RYC in Hawaii for hawaiian fencers will let fencing grow in Hawaii WAY faster than requiring those hawaiian fencers to fly over to LA or San Diego for a competition.

Same goes with Alaska in the PNW region; parts of Florida in the SE region; and so on.

[Schiavona]

Good post Eric! I'm fine with having Seattle as a hub, people up here are used to flying there-RT fare is only about $300 from Anchorage. Portland isn't much more.

[azfencer]

I think only having to drive 2/2.5 hours for the tournaments is dreaming for some regions, but I think that will be true no matter how the regions are defined and I think many of us are used to that and accept it that way. As long as the regions are only suggestions and fencers are allowed to fence in any region they want I think these divisions are reasonable. I would guess many arizona fencers would go to the southern cal tournaments instead of the rocky mountain tournaments (unless they are in Arizona or New Mexico), and as long as they can choose that option I like the system. Please, please, please don't make the regions defined by divisions like sectionals are now a couple years from now, that's all I ask!!! It may seem to be convenient to solve some problem on the east coast someday, but remember us fencers in the big open west and just don't do it!

Maybe the regions with far-flung areas like Hawaii and Alaska should be allowed/required to have four RYCs instead of three with one of the tournaments being in Hawaii/Alaska. That way kids in those communities get at least one chance to fence and qualify (if applicable) without having to buy airplane tickets. They can always attend more if they want to and have the means.

(Of course I have nothing to do with youth fencing so take my comments with a grain of salt. )

[edew]

Certainly, Arizona (and New Mexico) fencers should be allowed, and probably would prefer to go to So Cal.

It would be completely redundant to make the regions statically defined and fencers in divisions assigned to a region must compete in that region. It would be nothing more than a revamped version of the existing sections.

Hubs are where the concentrated fencing experience occurs. Fencers living away from any particular hub is free to go to any hub, or form their own. The SYCs, which earns points for fencers, are restricted to the three or so places per year.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by azfencer

Maybe the regions with far-flung areas like Hawaii and Alaska should be allowed/required to have four RYCs instead of three with one of the tournaments being in Hawaii/Alaska. That way kids in those communities get at least one chance to fence and qualify (if applicable) without having to buy airplane tickets. They can always attend more if they want to and have the means.

Don't know Hawaii's situation, but having a RYC up here would be like having a Division Junior tournament. Having the RYCs some place "bigger" would result in a bigger, better field-thus a better event.

[KD5MDK]

Wouldn't it make more sense to put Border Texas, and possibly Plains Texas, in the Southwest Region? BT is already in the SW Section, and PT has applied to join, I believe.

Edit - Not to say that regions should be based on sections. However, in this case I think the Divisions in question are part of or trying to be part of the section because that collection of areas provides good tournament opportunities.

[heretic]

IMO, the Youth Committee has set the regionalization movement back three years. They “invented” new regions simply by looking at a map of the US and drawing lines around contiguous divisions to create roughly equivalent groups of youth fencers. The previous committee took a more pragmatic approach. We tried to identify real centers of youth fencing – clubs and divisions which produced the fencers who went to the NACs, and already ran large, successful competitions. We based our regional organization around these actual centers, because we calculated that they had the organizational and participatory infrastructure to run successful events. The new plan has two major flaws:
1. It ignores the fact that many of the newly designated regions lack the organization and infrastructure to host large events or meet the criteria for hosting they set. I can designate the Gobi desert as a region, but if there is no one there capable of running an event, my designation is irrelevant. Further, they ignore the specific problems that various regions face by setting overly stringent requirements. For example, in NYC, it is easier to get qualified referees, but more difficult to secure large, cost effective venues, while in the south, venues may be procured but referees are harder to come by.
2. They have badly hurt successful regions by unnecessarily subdividing the regions. The north east region – from Boston to Philadelphia –was running effectively, hosting 4 large, well attended events. Under the new plan this region has been chopped up into four pieces. If all these new regions choose to run the requisite number of events, it will drastically dilute attendance, and cause inevitable scheduling conflicts. FYI, no one from the north east who has ever run a regional event was consulted or included on the committee that designed this restructuring.
Last year, the absence of any meaningful communication and the delays in designating super-regional events led to an overall decline in attendance of the RYCs and unnecessary squabbles within the regions. Eric Dew is correct in stating that you need 10 to12 months in advance to secure large venues, and the Youth Committee doesn’t seem to be aware of these grass root organizational issues.

I do not feel this committee is doing a good job, nor does it represent a fair cross section of those of us who have been the principal advocates of youth fencing.

[fluidfencer]

Eric, good point regarding the timing of the RYC Coordinator appointments. That will likely be adopted going forward. If I understand it correctly, you are suggesting that the RYC Coordinators be "chosen" in January but actually take over their position on August 1. This would let the previous RYCC finish the season they started and planned (assuming there is a change in RYCCs). For this year, we will just have to work through it as is. We have had trouble getting people to volunteer in several areas of the country, so I don't know how many people will be clamoring to volunteer for the RYCC positions.

We/I tried to make the point, in previous discussion here and in the RYC information on the web site, that the Regions are NOT some finite and restrictive boundry, beyond which young fencers will be imprisoned if they dare to compete in another Region. Eric Dew have been one of my most influential guides on this topic, and his (your) opinion echoed through my head as we approached the topic of Regions.

Kelly Williams looked at the only available information regarding the number of youth fencers in the country: the USFA, which sorts that data by Division. This was not based on the total number of fencers, but of youth fencers. We know it is not entirely accurate. We know it produces some odd results when you apply this data. The purpose of changing an already irrelevant set of Region boundries was just to make sure that all areas of the country were covered. There were still llots of states/divisions/whatever that were never included in the RYC program, basically as an oversight and because there were few youth fencers in those areas. We also considered things like the drivability of a Region (I live in the Southeast so I absolutely understand that issue), and the natural patterns of fencers with concentrations/hubs.

Here is the key point that Eric has made to me and that I believe to my core: It does not matter what how the Regions are defined. Fencers are free to travel to any RYC or SYC. If a club further away is doing a better job hosting RYCs or attracting good competition, then my Alabama Y12 epee fencer is going to travel to Texas (which we have done) to get the best competitive experience. If my Alabama Y10 foil fencer (my son for example) has only been fencing for 10 months and wants some more experience but the parents (me) doesn't want to spend a ton of money to go to Texas, there are RYCs nearby (Birmingham, Atlanta, Nashville, maybe Charlotte) that fit the bill just fine. Nashville and Charlotte might not be in my "Region" but they are convenient and accomplish what I want for my fencer.

THAT, my friends, is what we are trying to accomplish and upon what the RYC/SYC program was, and is, based.

Eric, it probably means that you will need to continue coordinating your efforts with surrounding Regions. If anything, Regions are likely to change again in a few years, or maybe not, and maybe using a different method of doing so. Hopefully, the YDC at that time will have learned something along the way. As a member of the YDC, I am seriously looking to people like you to help make this work and to continue offering criticism and suggestions. That is the only way we can progress.

Heretic, I don't know you but I believe you are a knowledgeable source of information based on your comments. Please remember that the questions you raise relate to RYCs. I realize that an RYC in the metro Northeast has a far different meaning than in the Southeast. Balancing the needs of the different Regions has not been easy, but the goal is to ensure that the events are of equivalent and consistent quality. Remember that these are qualifying events to national tournaments. I will also point out again that a change in the definition of the Regions does NOT impact the ability of people within your Region and surrounding ones to do what is necessary and best for your fencers. If hosting 4 large RYCs in the Boston - Philly area is best for your fencers, then plan to do that. If you are serious about planning, you should also consider a number of smaller events for fencers closer to home as well. If you feel that 3-5 RYCs in each Region will dilute the effectiveness of your RYC program as a whole, and as a developmental opportunity for your kids (the key issue here), then talk with the YDC about reducing the number. If you want to use strips that are smaller than regulation size, forget it. There is plenty of flexibility to do what is best for the youth fencers in your Region.

I apologize for this sounding a little defensive, but we did and continue to discuss all of the issue you bring up (and a lot more). I personally did talk to (this is all from memory so I'm sorry for wrecking names) Eric Rosenberg, Mitch Berliner, Ms. Finkle, the gentleman who hosted the CT SYC, as well as some USFA Board members from the Northeast. I did that all over the country, at my own expense. I have emails and notes to prove it. You don't have to remind me what a mess this past season has been. Our goals has been to make sure it doesn't happen again. This season will be much better, and I genuinely expect that next season will be much better than this, whether or not I am involved.

If you have suggestions after reading this response, please contact me. I am always available. If you want to make an impact on the future of youth fencing, contact Nancy Anderson and ask to be considered for the Youth Development Committee for the upcoming year. Don't presume too much about what you know and don't know before getting all the information.

David Arias
Youth Development Committee
205-515-3902
arias@fencingclub.org

[fluidfencer]

I sometimes think that there is a misconception of what an RYC represents. There are no size requirements. An RYC in NYC city might have 400 kids, one in St. Louis might have 80. They are designed to provide youth fencers a chance to gain experience competing with other youth fencers. As Eric Dew has pointed out in the past, this can just as easily be accomplished by a club hosting its own youth tournament. Many clubs did that before RYCs were created and many still do.

I think people need to take a big collective breath, maybe try yoga. The RYCs has great potential to develop youth fencers, and provide experiences that will make them want to continue fencing. Atlanta can't (yet) host an RYC that brings 400 youth fencers. So what. There are some kids who really enjoy going to a well run competition near home. If they are very good and need/want more challenge/competition, then some travel is expected. How is that different than any other competition in any other sport? The is the idea behind regionalization (for lack of a better term).

So, no, having a RYC in Alaska won't provide the same experience as it would in San Francisco. You won't get the skill level, or diversity from dofferent clubs. But your kids will enjoy themselves and it will provide an important step in their growth as fencers. It will qualify them for national tournaments if they decide to do so. The host won't make much money either. Does that mean you shouldn't host a RYC?

Originally Posted by Schiavona

Don't know Hawaii's situation, but having a RYC up here would be like having a Division Junior tournament. Having the RYCs some place "bigger" would result in a bigger, better field-thus a better event.

[edew]

David,

I don't want to imply, by your comments about my comments, that I advocate making RYCs easier to create. If a club is genuinely out of the general area of any nearby region, and the club (and hopefully, several other clubs) can form a regional event, then by all means, they should create their own RYC, and the YDC should respect and acknowledge the existence of a new region.

But on the other hand, you certainly don't want any tom-dick-and-harry club to run their nightly club practice tournament and call it a RYC. There should be some guidelines and standards set by the YDC so that the naming of an event as a RYC is not abused. Other than that, leave the respective regions to create their own.

Also, this "application to be a RYC coordinator" just reeks of politics and backroom dealings. Don't tell me that it's all up-and-up. It isn't, and if it were, it soon won't be. Look, it's not going to be some Mr. Smith who is going to apply for this position. That person is going to be vetted locally or somehow sponsored by some local powers that be. If there are competing applicants, then surely there's a political motive for having a competing applicant. If it's clear that there is incompetence, then there's no need to bring it up to the YDC. The local clubs involved in that region have a vested interest in firing the coordinator and putting someone else on board, or just make their own. Then, this new RYC-ish series should be checked off against the guidelines and standards. If the series meets the standards, then it becomes a RYC.

Can there be multiple RYCs in one region, run by different coordinators? Why not? As long as the events meet standards, there's no reason for not having competing ones, other than the financial risks involved. But the YDC is not in the business of advising on the finances. The coordinator and the tournament organizers themselves can determine whether their event will succeed or fail.

Unsuccessful events will quickly be taken over or modified because there's a need at the local level to make things work. The YDC should just make sure that no hanky-panky goes on in designating whether an event is a RYC event or just some local youth tournament. And the YDC does this by setting up guidelines and standards, not by reviewing after the fact.

[heretic]

Fact: I have sent emails to Nancy Anderson, Kelly Williams (chair), Ro Sobalvarro (VP in charge) and Mike Massik (ED) regarding the problems I outlined and they have failed to respond. No matter how you choose to characterize the Youth Committee, they have not solicited different points of view or conducted an open debate.

Obviously Ms Williams did her “connect the dots” approach to reorganization by looking at the number of youth fencers in each division. Again, I assert that numbers alone do not tell the story. It is more important to reach out to the individuals actually doing the job, i.e. running successful youth programs and tournaments, and integrate them into the organizational plan. This committee doesn’t reach out – it simply dictates terms. Those dedicated volunteers who work tirelessly to run good programs and events should be identified, consulted and enfranchised – not dictated to.

[fluidfencer]

Eric,

I am naive, trusting and idealistic in many respects. I EXPECT that decisions will be made with the best interests of the sport in mind. I believe in professionalism and following a process that leads to the very best decision under the circumstances. If the USFA has any hope of developing, it must clean out all the sludge that slows everything down. That doesn't mean getting rid of people necessarily. It means changing the way you do business and EXPECTING that people are going to do the right thing.

I can't do anything about problems in the USFA as a whole (although I see change there as well), but I can have an influence on what goes on within the YDC. I genuinely believe, despite our individual biases and desires, that the YDC is making some very long strides toward instilling professionalism into the process of developing young fencers. I believe that was the case with the people who originally started the concept of RYCs in the first place. It/I/we are not where we need to be yet but I wouldn't work so hard and stay involved unless I thought we were heading in the right direction.

I can't promise you that everything will be free of any politics, only to the extent that I am not aware of it happening. It is our (YDC) responsibility to appoint RYC Coordinators that will also handle things objectively, professionally and with the experience necessary to do a good job. Once that is done, communication is important. If RYC Coordinators want to work together to accomplish a collective goal, GREAT! If they nominate one of several to coordinate activities among and between the respective Regions, GREAT! If you, as RYC Coordinator, want a RYCC from another Region to run your RYCs, GREAT! If that accomplishes the goal of providing youth fencers with opportunities to develop their skills in a healthy atmosphere of competition, in a way that provides those opportunities to fencers at various levels of experience and skill, and are run in accordance with the guidelines the YDC established to promote a minimum and consistent level of quality, you can certainly expect the enthusiastic support of everyone involved.

Likewise, if a RYCC is doing a crappy job, they shouldn't expect to stay in that role and I don't plan to wait until a season is over to correct it. A "crappy job" can be caused by inaction, failure to plan or stick to a plan regarding RYCs scheduled for their Region, playing loose with the guidelines in any way, or (and this is a big one) because of politics within a Region or area of the country an RYCC sets up a plan that clearly puts one group at an advantage over another. I haven't quite figured out the history of conflicts in your part of the country. To be honest, I could give a %$#@ about them. If I saw that you (this in definitely just an example) were planning RYCs to make it inconvenient for others (fencers or clubs or coaches), either through scheduling of events or manipulating information/communication, you would be replaced.

I guess scheduling is the biggest problem. That should be addressed in two ways. First, the overall schedule will be approved by the YDC after receiving information from all the RYCCs. We should be able to address any obvious errors at that point. Then the revised schedule will be published for comment before being finalized. That should address most other issues. Good communication will be important. Remember that only the YDC can designate a tournament as an RYC. Some approvals were done during the year this past season and I consider that a big mistake, and will try to make sure that doesn't happen this season. I think the great majority of people on the YDC, if not all, are in agreement on that.

Eric, I WANT you and others to be looking over my shoulder and being skeptical. I need your help to make sure of that. Question everything we/I do, but be knowledgeable when you do (which you almost always are).

What I really want to see happen are (these have nothing to do with Eric and are my own view of what needs to be done):
- Fencers should demand the type of professionalism we all know needs to happen. I, like you, don't generally know to whom that demand should be made, but make it loudly and make it often to whomever you think can influence the outcome.
- Expect more from every corner of the USFA. If they don't seem willing or able to get something done, VOLUNTEER TO DO IT YOURSELF. I have a low tolerence of people who complain but don't offer sound criticism and suggestions and aren't willing to step up and do the work.
- If you want to remove politics from the decision-making process, quit being do damned political yourself. We have all see or heard about situations in clubs or divisions or whatever that are absolutely ridiculous. If I had the guts to do it I would name names. For goodness sake, grow up.

I've babbled long enough...