Moving the USFA Forward

[CvilleFencer]

I very strongly agree with Mr. Epee in his above statement. Being in the SES, sectionals is often a very long way away. Like a 1000 miles or more away! It makes it very hard for fencers attend summer nationals when it uses up your summer nationals travel budget to get to the qualifing event! A smarter, more well thought out plan for divisional structuring is a must if we are going to grow regional events and develop workable circuits that unite a section and allow them good oppurtunities to train. This really needs to be the first step IMHO.

[peet]

Being in the SES, sectionals is often a very long way away. Like a 1000 miles or more away! It makes it very hard for fencers attend summer nationals when it uses up your summer nationals travel budget to get to the qualifing event!

Try flying to Alaska every fifth year to go to Sectionals. Or worse, imagine flying FROM Alaska four out of every five years!

The PNWS is the most spread out.
It's a drag, but but mostly I just suck it up and buy the ticket.


-p

[Feltan]

...As Mr Epee and Feltan point out, there are some losers in the initial phases of regionalization...I encourage either of you to present in writing a more equitable approach. I’m sure Craig would post it prominently, and I for one would love to the chance to comment.

Heretic,

I will float some ideas and thoughts -- it's the best I can do with given time constraints.

1. The current USFA focus is, in my opinion, slightly misguided. Theirs should be a twofold mission: elite athletes, and fostering a strong division/regional infrustructure. They need to get out of the business of running country-wide open tournaments for two reasons: 1) The NACs are getting too large, too expensive and too cumberson to serve their original purpose -- one day soon, the NAC sytem will implode under its own weight. The NACs will become a victim to their own success. And 2) given the weight the USFA places on NACs, lower echelon tournaments are often relegated to places of minor or distinctly secondary importance in the shadows of the NACs.

2. The divisional/regional tournament system is not necessarily broken, but it is starved. The NACs and RYCs have replaced much of the reason to hold divisional/regional tournaments -- and the number and relative importance of divisional/regional tournaments has been in steady decline. Put in another light, a strong centralized system of tournaments means that decentralized tournaments will not be popular or attract sufficient numbers of competative fencers.

3. This situation is trending toward a scheduled train wreck. NACs will, at some point, have to implement some attendence restrictions. Those unable to attend NACs will have to avail themselves to regional/divisional tournaments that are not as robust or as important as they should be -- emotions will flare, people will feel left out, and the sport will suffer.

4. The divisional organizations -- and by this I mean the geographic boundaries -- seem to be generally sound. I am sure some tweaking is needed, but generally I do not see systemic flaws.

5. The regional system, on the other hand, is flawed. While demographic balance is a desirable goal, the geographic boundaries are so large in some cases as to make regional tournaments inaccessible to many/most fencers in the region. I think we are going to have to acknowledge that while demographic balance is a good thing, we really need to focus on geographic accessability as the primary concern.

6. Givent that the above is generally true (and I am inviting discussion on it), it would seem to me that the solution to improve regional events requires a dual appoach:

[Feltan]

...As Mr Epee and Feltan point out, there are some losers in the initial phases of regionalization...I encourage either of you to present in writing a more equitable approach. I’m sure Craig would post it prominently, and I for one would love to the chance to comment.

Heretic,

I will float some ideas and thoughts -- it's the best I can do with given time constraints.

1. The current USFA focus is, in my opinion, slightly misguided. Theirs should be a twofold mission: elite athletes, and fostering a strong division/regional infrustructure. They need to get out of the business of running country-wide open tournaments for two reasons: 1) The NACs are getting too large, too expensive and too cumberson to serve their original purpose -- one day soon, the NAC sytem will implode under its own weight. The NACs will become a victim to their own success. And 2) given the weight the USFA places on NACs, lower echelon tournaments are often relegated to places of minor or distinctly secondary importance in the shadows of the NACs.

2. The divisional/regional tournament system is not necessarily broken, but it is starved. The NACs and RYCs have replaced much of the reason to hold divisional/regional tournaments -- and the number and relative importance of divisional/regional tournaments has been in steady decline. Put in another light, a strong centralized system of tournaments means that decentralized tournaments will not be popular or attract sufficient numbers of competative fencers.

3. This situation is trending toward a scheduled train wreck. NACs will, at some point, have to implement some attendence restrictions. Those unable to attend NACs will have to avail themselves to regional/divisional tournaments that are not as robust or as important as they should be -- emotions will flare, people will feel left out, and the sport will suffer.

4. The divisional organizations -- and by this I mean the geographic boundaries -- seem to be generally sound. I am sure some tweaking is needed, but generally I do not see systemic flaws.

5. The regional system, on the other hand, is flawed. While demographic balance is a desirable goal, the geographic boundaries are so large in some cases as to make regional tournaments inaccessible to many/most fencers in the region. I think we are going to have to acknowledge that while demographic balance is a good thing, we really need to focus on geographic accessability as the primary concern.

6. Given that the above is generally true (and I am inviting discussion on it), it would seem to me that the solution to improve regional events requires a dual appoach: 1) have some sort of qualification to NACs via regional qualifiers, and 2) increase the number of regions. Currently, there are (I believe) about 10 regions in the country. If there were, say, fifteen to twenty with each centered on a fencing locus the geographic distance any fencer would be required to travel could be reduced to a reasonable distance.

Regards,
Feltan

[KD5MDK]

How does Hawaii handle it?

Really, there needs to be some sort of accomodation for the seriously remote places.

[Schiavona]

How does Hawaii handle it?

Really, there needs to be some sort of accomodation for the seriously remote places.

They suck it up and fly to the mainland.

We (Alaska) have fencers in places you can only fly or boat from. Imagine having to kick out $300-$500 just to go to Divisionals, then another $300 just to get to Seattle. We're sometimes amazed that people whine about being able to drive to tournaments .

Some places just aren't good for somethings. Alaska and Hawa'ii just aren't good places to have a national level fencing career.

BUT, I can't stress how important Summer Nationals are to us. All of our fencers who go come back on fire for fencing.

[persistence]

If there really is an 800-member club in Virginia somewhere that doesn't have members in the USFA they should really have to explain Why They Hate American Fencing. I don't know squat about running a club, but I wonder if it would be so hard to make membership part of your club dues?

The club in question may or may not have that many members, but that total includes a number of Historical Fencers, in addition to the Olympic Sport Fencer contingent. They have at least one coach who apparently offers katana, rapier, and two-handed sword. And the USFA at present, as far as I can see, has nothing really to offer to historical or classical fencers.

These categories of fencers, along with those in SCA-type programs, also may have some relevance that needs to be factored in when using equipment sales as a method of gauging the number of fencers in this country.

[Feltan]

They suck it up and fly to the mainland.

We (Alaska) have fencers in places you can only fly or boat from. Imagine having to kick out $300-$500 just to go to Divisionals, then another $300 just to get to Seattle. We're sometimes amazed that people whine about being able to drive to tournaments .

Some places just aren't good for somethings. Alaska and Hawa'ii just aren't good places to have a national level fencing career.

BUT, I can't stress how important Summer Nationals are to us. All of our fencers who go come back on fire for fencing.

I would think that if some regional qualification standard is, or will be set, for NACs that Alaska and Hawaii can be handled as exceptions -- perhaps just qualifying through a division tournament. The risk of a NAC or Nationals being flooded and over represented from Alaska and Hawaii seems to be a risk should be willing to take geven the travel times and sacrifices you already have to make.

Regards,
Feltan

[Schiavona]

The risk of a NAC or Nationals being flooded and over represented from Alaska and Hawaii seems to be a risk should be willing to take geven the travel times and sacrifices you already have to make.

Regards,
Feltan

*laughing* I don't know about Hawa'ii, but there are dozens of clubs with more fencers than this state.

[Feltan]

*laughing* I don't know about Hawa'ii, but there are dozens of clubs with more fencers than this state.

I know.

Exactly my point.

It would seem like an excessive and inappropriate application of procedure to make folks in Alaska go through the same qualifications as someone in NYC for instance.

Regards,
Feltan

[KD5MDK]

What are the qualification paths for members of the National Division, like North Dakota?

[mfp]

We (Alaska) have fencers in places you can only fly or boat from. Imagine having to kick out $300-$500 just to go to Divisionals, then another $300 just to get to Seattle.

What besides DivIA would require Alaska (or Hawaii) fencers to fly to their sectionals in order to qualify for summer nationals?

Why would any sort of an "exception" be needed when Div III, Div II, Vet, and the youth age range events for nationals all look to have qualifying opportunites at the Division level already?

[Feltan]

What besides DivIA would require Alaska (or Hawaii) fencers to fly to their sectionals in order to qualify for summer nationals?

Why would any sort of an "exception" be needed when Div III, Div II, Vet, and the youth age range events for nationals all look to have qualifying opportunites at the Division level already?

mfp,

Part of the ongoing discussion in this thread is a potential future requirement for some sort of qualification for NACs due to thier growing size. The discussion is not of current procedure.

Regards,
Feltan

[Fencing Mom]

What besides DivIA would require Alaska (or Hawaii) fencers to fly to their sectionals in order to qualify for summer nationals?

Why would any sort of an "exception" be needed when Div III, Div II, Vet, and the youth age range events for nationals all look to have qualifying opportunites at the Division level already?

Juniors.
If you don't have junior national points, the only way you can qualify for the junior championship is at the junior sectional tournament. You can't qualify for it in the division.

Also, Div 1A is a pretty big deal. You need senior national points to qualify for the Div 1 championship. If you are a C, then you can fence Div II, but if you are a B or A-rated fencer and you don't have senior nat. points for Div 1, and you have aged out of everything else, then you can only fence 1A. That takes in a lot of people. And Div 1A at Summer Nats is always a good tournament.

[oiuyt]

What are the qualification paths for members of the National Division, like North Dakota?

They just sign up for the events. If there are "too many" such entrants (I don't believe the quantity is specified anywhere) then they are subject to a qualifier held the day before nationals in the host city. Note that it's unlikely that facilities would be available for said qualifier(s), nor has this qualifier ever been held/required AFAIK.

National division isn't intended for unincorporated areas on the US (part of why there's a new "Northeast Pennsylvania Division" where there used to be some unincorporated territory that actually had a number of fencers), but is intended for USFA members overseas (military, schooling abroad, etc.). I have a couple of friends that "qualified for" and fenced in summer nationals (DII, DIA, possibly DIII) as members of the national division during their junior year abroad (one in Italy, the other in New Zealand).

As long as the numbers from National division are sufficiently low this potential loophole isn't a big enough issue to warrant extensive work plugging.

D1 qualification is the same for national division members as for anyone else.

-B

[JEC]

From the splitting veteran events:
http://www.fencing.net/forums/fencin...on/t20975.html

There could be an amendment for VETERAN events that if the field reaches 64 (thus becoming possibly an A4, A3, B3, or C3 tournament), then and only then, there is an 80% promotion.

It has been noted that certain veteran events are poorly attended. At the 2006 Summer Nationals, it has been approved to have only 80% promotion of fencers. However, there are events with so few fencers that it just doesn't make sense. For example, the following is data from the 2005 Summer Nationals:

WS 60+: 6 fencers - 80% (4 or 5)
WF 60+: 7 fencers - 80% (5 or 6)
WE 60+: 8 fencers - 80% (6 or 7)

The proposed amendment could be limit the application of the 80% once a meaningful "size" of the field is achieved. That is, either 25 fencers (going from A1, B1, C1 into a A2, B2, C2 level) or 64 fencers. If fencers are getting a shot at a better "rating" tournament, then you can take away the privilege of a DE bout for only those who qualify after pools.

[KD5MDK]

National division isn't intended for unincorporated areas on the US (part of why there's a new "Northeast Pennsylvania Division" where there used to be some unincorporated territory that actually had a number of fencers), but is intended for USFA members overseas (military, schooling abroad, etc.). I have a couple of friends that "qualified for" and fenced in summer nationals (DII, DIA, possibly DIII) as members of the national division during their junior year abroad (one in Italy, the other in New Zealand).

When I was poking around the USFA website, it said that North Dakota was a part of the National Division. Is this because there are incredibly few fencers there, is innaccurate, or should be corrected because it is part of the United States?

[oiuyt]

When I was poking around the USFA website, it said that North Dakota was a part of the National Division. Is this because there are incredibly few fencers there, is innaccurate, or should be corrected because it is part of the United States?

It is because there were no fencers there the last time boundaries were drawn in the area. There is a fair amount of unincorporated territory that just hasn't been put into one division or another. My example from PA was merely a good example of an area where it made a difference and just recently (this season) was cleaned up.

PA had all of its boundaries redrawn for this season (there was area that was overlapped by 2+ divisions, area where it wasn't clear if it was part of 0, 1, or 2 divisions, lots of area that wasn't part of any division, areas that were part of one division but that wanted to be part of a different division, etc.). It's a low-priority task to get all areas inside the US to officially belong to SOME division. In most of the area that isn't already it really doesn't matter because there's no (or next to no) fencing there currently.

Most of New Mexico is national division. Parts of CA are national division. You'll find bits and pieces here and there if you look.

-B

[oiuyt]

One more note about "National" division:

1.Section National Division Membership. All members of the USFA who are not eligible, or do not apply for membership in a Division shall be members of the National Division.

So this is actually a fairly easy loophole to exploit.... at the beginning of the season make sure that you aren't listed as a member of the division that you live in, that your club is in, that you attend school in, etc. You'll be placed in the national division. Easy qualification path to IA, II, III, JO's, etc. Might have to work to explicitly make sure you're not placed in a division (most likely whatever division you were in the previous season).

Note: if people actually started taking advantage of this process I wouldn't be surprised to see it closed, and possibly in a way which disadvantages those clearly attempting to abuse it. I do not suggest employing such a strategy, nor do I warrant that it would actually be successful.

-B

[Mo]

As a person who has a kid who tends to make national teams, the best thing the USFA had done for fencing kids and parents of the kids is to have Andrea Lagan as the team manager.
She is the team manager indeed. She is not off Schmoozing, she is not trying to impress people with her lofty position with the US teams, she is doing what a team Manager should be doing.
You can find her when you need her.
No task is too small.
She carefully researches hotels, making sure there are appropropriate things for the kids to eat.
She finds a good deal.
She doesn't try to hide information.
She makes sure the kids are transported.
She does bed checks.
Best of all, if someone has been drinking, even if they are not intoxicated, she won't let them drive your kid around.
She listens to concerns from parents. (sometimes this is difficult)
She will get a kid out of a situation if someone is bullying them, (like another parent.)
Kudos for the choice.... and thanks Andrea.
Mo