80% promotion for Div II/III/Vet @ US nationals

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by noodle

hey, good idea. 80% cut for the referees that pass the exams and practicals, since we only want the best of the best directing our bouts.

Hey! I like this idea. Then I won't have to explain to my Y-14 fencers that when the referee at Nationals told them that "THEY changed the rule to forward movement has ROW.", what he REALLY MEANT.

[Schiavona]

I really can't grasp the reasons for cutting back Sumer Nationals.

"It's too big"
Well, don't we complain about fencing not getting any media? Big sports events do get media.
"It's too big, we can't handle the size of the fields"
Well, isn't the size of the tournament an indication of the growth in fencing?
Other sports have different levels and championships for each level. Why can't we handle it?
"To cut or not to cut."
Look in the "Athlete's Handbook", there are many different formats. How about two rounds of pools (more fencing) with a 40% or 60% cut (very competitive)?
All these complaints are growing pains. Do we want to go back to the "good ol' days"? Ten years ago membership was less than 9,000 and tournaments were small. Want that? Or would you rather have 20,000+ members and more every year? I know which one I want.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Oh, and by the way, hasn't this whole debate already happened? Complete with Inq trying to argue some totally weird 'logical' point with me?

Yep complete with the following

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Note: When invited to make his point Inq has only two responses.

A) typing a boatload of semantic gobblety-gook, punctuated with various appeals to standards of rhetoric (which he doesn't apply to himself)

B) Attempt a wisecrack.

For more exciting discussion... I refer you to same old same old most of the relevent stuff is a few pages into the thread.

Look, the rule has been changed... and I don't expect it to be reversed anytime in the next few years.

Cheers - and a quick niener-niener

[mrvegas]

A few points:

Oddly, the USFA budget, which is extremely vague on items like salaries and which contractors are getting money, indicates that only about 1/3 of their money comes from USOC. The rest comes from entry fees and memberships. Roughly about 1/3 each. Nobody knows how much the administrators make or where the money is really spent. The budget is a model for disguising actual expenditures.

The USFA wants to reduce the numbers at Summer Nationals, which it views as an irritation at best. It is a nightmare for the referees (understandably), who don't get paid much. The USFA only cares about international results, and national qualifying events. Does this make sense? Not really, but the board of directors doesn't really give a damn about the ordinary member. They only want gold medals.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Goofy

At some point a higher standard (a level of 'elitism', if you will) has to be set if there is to be overall improvement and someone- the USFA, you, me- has to set that standard.

Why?

an event known as a National Championship SHOULD be more difficult, and if that comes from fewer fencers advancing to the elimination rounds then it does.

Why?

I see the lower levels as the best example of the problem- there are many fencers who actively refuse to improve their ratings because they want to stay in the Div II/Div III competitions, and the main way they do this is to not improve their fencing skills; I've seen this at the club, division, and section levels.

And I have NEVER seen it.

I wonder if one or the other of us is imagining things?

And this also affects the 'regional strengths' point. If there are enough fencers in an area that do not WANT to get better they will in turn prevent others in that area from getting better due to the weaker competition. Which affects improvement up the ladder, not down, because the lower standard becomes prevalent.

This whole edifice rests on the foundation of "lots of fencers are slyly trying not to get better 'cause they want to stay in Div III". That foundation is not IMO well established, certainly not by anecdotal citations of "many fencers".

The counterpoint to this is that we are only talking about a DE bout or two per person at Nationals and what does this hurt because they will have more fun? Nothing at all, if the interest is in entertaining the individual. What should be asked here is when does the entertainment stop and the improvement begin?

Well, that's one opinion...it is not revealed Truth. If I feel---and I do---that it is NOT "nothing", why does my opinion count for less than the obverse?

And if we're talking about "improvement", I shall again bring up my example from a previous thread: the person who I watched come out of the pool round in a Div II NAC at 1-5 or something like that and go on to place 3rd in the overall event and earn a B, in the process demolishing the #7 seed and the #3 seed in rapid succession. Now you institute the cut, and that can't happen anymore. No redemption, no clawing your way back from the brink of defeat, no self-examination and correction under pressure which lets you become a better fencer...and certainly no B...or C...or D...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by achilleus

hasn't this whole debate already happened? Complete with Inq trying to argue some totally weird 'logical' point with me?

Yes, and complete with you blinking and pretending not to see it. ( I must assume that it was pretense, as you are clearly not that impenetrable. )

[Mr Epee]

Note1: Post #64 above is a variation on response type "A".
Note2: Post #65 above is a variation on response type "B"

And

Inqie-poo, Tell your famous friend (also anectdotal evidence btw) that he should "get it in gear" for the pools, because his slacker days are over.

[Inquartata]

My, what a cogent counterargument. How DO you come up with them so consistently?

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Yes, and complete with you blinking and pretending not to see it. ( I must assume that it was pretense, as you are clearly not that impenetrable. )

Dude,

I wish it was, but really, as I stated in the previous thread, your logic really made as much sense to me as the oreo analogy I posted...

[Dee EffEll]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Wouldn't be at all surprised to see SN this year 15-20% larger than last year.
-B

Perhaps. But it might have been even bigger (and in the USFA's estimation, that much more unmanageable) without the rule change.

A previous thread cited some statistics of the number of entries over the last few years. Wonder if that is still available with an update? IIRC, there was a significant decrease in entries when they adopted the (incomprehensible) qualifying paths.

[Frank Pratt]

Originally Posted by JEC

Two ideas to decreasing "rating inflation" and size of NACs competitions while increasing their degree of difficulty:

a) Increase the number of Divisions at the NACs by creating a Division "X" for each rating, with Div. I being only A's and so on. OR Alternatively, making Div. I for A's and B's, Div. II for B's and C's, Div. III for C's and D's, Div. IV for D's and E's, and Div. V for E's and U's.

b) Increasing the decay of rating from 4 years to 2 years.

I think the last think we need is a dozen or more events added to The Summer Nationals. Remember, each "Division" would have 6 competitions. How would all of these new competitions fit into the schedule without adding another few days to the tournament? Another thing to consider is that requirement that “same weapon” conflicts (eg. Div. V ME and U19ME taking place at the same time) must be avoided whenever possible. I have given thought to a "Div IV" event that's limited to unclassified fencers, but I even think that idea is excessive.

As for your classification decay idea, I completely agree. If you have not re-earned a classification after dozens of opportunities to "confirm" what you already have (been there, done that!), it's time to downgrade a level.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Being done. A task force is in the process of being named that will be looking at exactly this, taking a longish view rather than just "what patches should be applied this year" approach. Many/most/all of the recommendations will be targetted for full implementation at the start of next quad, although I would expect some of the changes to satart coming into place in 07-08 (especially if they minimally affect the Olympic team determinations and preparations) and some changes might be in place for 06-07.

The task force has a timeline of reporting back SOMETHING to the BoD in February and more complete recommendations in July. The members of the task force are scheduled to be finalized at an EC teleconference early next week and the names will be distributed to the Board after that has happened, and by the end of the month at the latest.

There is a separate committee/task force that will be examining the administrative divisions/sections structure of the USFA and making recommendations of possible changes to help make the USFA more efficient and better able to serve the varying needs of the membership and deal with the massive growth that we're experiencing.

Details as they become available.

-B

The implication, then, is that these changes might be temporary?

[MikeHarm]

I don't see a problem with it. We compete all the time for ratings and medals etc. Having more stuff to fight over in the events makes it more exciting to me.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

The implication, then, is that these changes might be temporary?

The implication is that the entire structure is subject to review and change. The DI/IA/II/III strusture is open to change, the way qualification to NACs and Nationals is subject to change, what NACs are held is subject to change, in theory, WHETHER NACs are held, certainly formats of every event, etc.

The task force will review how tournaments are conducted nationally and make recommendations for how the national tournament strucutre should be going forward. This, in turn, clearly also touches on local/sectional tournaments as part of the path to nationals (whether direct qualifying, or merely in tournament strucutring and planning in the US).

So, in short, yes, but so is everything else...

-B :)

[oso97]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

The task force will review how tournaments are conducted nationally and make recommendations for how the national tournament strucutre should be going forward. This, in turn, clearly also touches on local/sectional tournaments as part of the path to nationals (whether direct qualifying, or merely in tournament strucutring and planning in the US).

Once again, the question arises of how said task force is being assembled and what criteria are being used for its construction! Not your fault Brad, but it would be nice if our esteemed president would be a tad more communicative.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by oso97

Once again, the question arises of how said task force is being assembled and what criteria are being used for its construction! Not your fault Brad, but it would be nice if our esteemed president would be a tad more communicative.

The task force is being finalized by the EC (expected date early next week, deadline end of month).

National Tournaments Task Force

To consider the various purposes for USFA national tournaments. With those purposes in mind to develop a plan for configuration of USFA national tournament, to be fully implemented as soon as possible.

Those serving on the task force will include those who are knowledgeable about the following constituencies that make up the organization:

* Athletes
* Coaches
* Officers
* Parents
* Referees
* Tournament operations -- national office
* Tournament operations -- volunteers
* Veterans
* Youth

The Task Force is to:
* Present an interim report to the Board of Directors at its February 2006 meeting
* Present a final plan for consideration by the Board of Directors no later than July 2006

Give it the week or two for the members to be named. If the names aren't available (or a good explanation for why not) by the end of the month, as promised, feel free to complain. If you don't agree with the people selected, perhaps there's grounds for complaint. Personally, I would strongly have preferred if the names were available for comment at the BoD meeting last weekend, but other than that I don't really see any grounds for complaints on this topic yet.

Once I get the list of names I'll post it. Until then I encourage a bit of patience.

-B

[mlr2fence]

OK, we'll be patient. That doesn't mean tho that we can't come up with the ideal tournament format in the meantime.....

[Peach]

Perhaps they are in the process of contacting the possible members to ask them if they will serve, given that it is a task force that will involve meetings, conference calls, more work over and above what they're already doing, and people of every description arguing with them. As an administrator of sorts myself, I know I'd prefer to have a possible list on hand before I ask for approval of a committee, especially if there was any doubt that the people I had in mind would be willing to serve--otherwise once I got approval I'd have to spend a while doing that and risk not being able to implement it. I would guess that they would announce the membership once they knew who was really going to be on it.

[IanSerotkin]

This is an idea I've been kicking around in my head for a year or two, and it's gotten generally positive feedback from those I've shared it with:

• Eliminate all Y10, Y12, Y14, Cadet, and Junior events from Summer Nationals. This would probably reduce the number of days needed for this event to 5-6 (currently 9-10, including Division I events).
• Add Y10, Y12, and Y14 to the Junior Olympics. This would probably raise the number of days needed for this event to 5-6 (currently 3).
• Rename Summer Nationals to "Senior National Championships", and rename Junior Olympics to "Junior National Championships".

Rationale:

• This would significantly reduce the number of days needed for Summer Nationals, resulting in a more manageable event.
• This would "flesh out" JOs, which is currently by far the lightest national event with only 12 events over 3 days.
• There would only be one National Championship for each event. For Cadet and Junior events, currently both JOs and Summer Nationals are considered their "Championships." Which is better? Is there a difference? I don't see any good reason to have both.

Reducing the size of individual events is outside the scope of this idea.

What do you all think?