Moving the USFA Forward

[dknj]

Given all the recent problems with the USFA, what would you do to help move the USFA forward?

Please provide serious & thoughful answers.

For example: If you think the president should be re-called, who would you name as a replacement and why? If you think the USFA should be re-organized, what would be the new structure? If you think circuits are too big, what would you do to make them more manageable, but not lose revenue? Obviously the USFA website needs online registration, but how would you do it given a limited budget, who would you get to do it, etc?

These are only suggestions. You don't necessarily need to answer them. I, and I'm sure a lot of others, want to hear your opinions. Please no random insults.

[MikeHarm]

Online signup. More resources for helping people to market fencing to grow the sport.

[fencerontheline]

I'd like there to be more coaching education available.

What the USFA is definitely lacking, is any realistic program to 'grow' coaches. The coaches college is a step in the right direction, but it's far too small a step. I think research and the pooling of resources can lead to the development of a higher quantity of quality coaches.

A higher average quality of coaches will definitely increase the quality of fencing in the US, as well as raise the level of the sport's awareness.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Online registration would be implemented with a credit card, and a USFA #. The credit card info would match the person, making it valid as a signature.

[Mr Epee]

I'm not sure what you mean about "all the recent problems", but I do know that things are much better than they have been historically.

One of the problem is that fencing is growing, and there are more resources available than ever before... in the mid 90's there was a situation where literally 12-14 of the top Epee fencers trained at the NYAC. Aladar was the primary coach, and it was pretty freakin' obvious who the National Coach should be. Today, things are less clear. The top fencers are more spread out, and there are more coaches with solid credintials (mostly imports). As I mentioned in another thread, it would be natural to have a standardized selection process with known critera.

Most of my issues with the USFA have to do with transparency.

I will continue this later, but I have to give a ride to someone.

[peet]

Dan-

I thought the USFA already had a vendor and a budget to do online registration? If not, what was that whole RFP process from back in the spring/summer for?

Did that project get killed? What happened? Was the search for a vendor unsuccessful?

-p

[edew]

Invite and include some top-level people onto the BoD. And I mean top-level executives from other businesses. Can you get a Steve Jobs or a Michael Dell to become a member of the board? That's what I'd ask USFA to do first. (This was one suggestion that Rita Finkel and I made in our quickie discussion at Nationals this past summer.)

[KD5MDK]

I would move the entire tournament registration/results process to AskFRED. This would of course cost something, but I'm sure that the membership is willing to pay. There's a proven track record there, and existing infrastructure.

My current biggest problem with the USFA comes in the field of communication: The membership is generally uninformed about what the orgainization is engaged in, and the processes are extremely opaque. For example, the bylaws have clear requirements for financial disclosures, committee reports, etc and these are rarely available. I can't think of a procedure that will fix that, just people doing things like they're supposed to.

[mlr2fence]

First of all it has to be recognized that fencing is growing and then determine to plan to accomodate the growth in an orderly fashion with a well thought out plan in advance. I keep getting the impression that the increase in fencers always comes as a shock, a 'Oh migosh! What do we do now?' and then some knee jerk response decision is decreed that doesn't really solve anything in the long term but just adds to the confusion and disgruntlement. It is painfully obvious that the format of NACs and Summer Nationals has to be altered (or maybe are we trying to get on TV with live-fencing at 3AM-from the current snowed in or marathon-inned city? On the other hand tho, anything is better than nothing?) The whole structure needs to be considered. How about building on the RYC concept, but with some real teeth in it and control? Many fencers attend NACs not realistically planning to get on some points list but to soak in the atmosphere, check out vendors, and to see friends along with getting in a hefty dose of fencing. Have USFA sponsored events, like mini-NACs, that would be a step below NACs that would satisfy the tire kickers urge for the big time. These could also be used as qualifiers for NACs/Nats with some type of qualifying points needed, or certain placings, minimum number of tourneys attended etc. There should be some requirement and the structure in place to accomodate this, that fencers need to compete at lower level tournaments to demonstrate some competency before allowing to compete at NACs. Once they become 'NAC qualified' its good for 'X' time span. (Obviously, cannot require everyone to do this on a yearly basis. I'm just trying to control the numbers of those who aren't serious fencers from clogging up the NACs. I'm referring to those low level fencers that don't compete in any local tournaments but show up at NACs as 'the only tournament worth their effort to attend' but yet never do well competitively because they lack the experience.) This would give the fencers something to strive for in addition to controlling the numbers. Other sports/countries have been able to do this, we just haven't been lucky enough to be in the position tht we had to. Of course there will always be those opposed to any changes, but if the changes are done orderly with some logical plan readily visible to all it will go along way to minimizing it.

Fencing also needs to look at itself to see what it offers different from other sports. We are lucky in this that fencing can be done by the more physically and age challenged. The ablility to compete in vet age groups should be marketed. Too many sports are physically age limited but yet current generations are used to being sport participants, not only spectators. When the 'body' outgrows the desire for gymnastics, football, etc the 'mind' still wants to do something competitive. Offer them fencing as being an alternative to just running on the treadmill. Also point out that it is a sport that truly the whole family can do together.

[KD5MDK]

As a 1 year stopgap measure, what if the number of NACs was doubled, but competitors limited to attending only 2? Unless serious measures are started Now, I don't see any way a regional qualification system could be set up in time for next year, and I don't think we can afford another year of such overstretched tournaments.

Or, perhaps already existing major tournaments could be coopted into serving as qualifiers, but I'm afraid that would run into a lot of political issues.

[oso97]

Setting up regional-based circuits and qualification system is something that is highly needed. But it cannot be done overnight and on the cheap. Its going to require a major investment of will and time. We need to decide on the structure, then give say, 3-4 years to get there, with intermediary benchmarks and goals in order to give time for the transition to occur properly.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that will encounter real resistance. There are quite a number of division-level officers who simply won't want to give up their power and control. And will fight tooth and nail against any sort of regional coordinating board/body/effort/tournament series that has real teeth or work to actively undermine it.

[KD5MDK]

Well, as a benchmark, how have the RYCs done? (and what does their results tell us about the circuit design process?)

[Peach]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Well, as a benchmark, how have the RYCs done? (and what does their results tell us about the circuit design process?)

From my observation, the RYCs have shifted some of the intense complaining and Monday-morning quarterbacking from the national level to the regional level, so at least some of the load has been effectively transferred.

[mlr2fence]

In some ways, comparing RYCs to a new format is like comparing apples and oranges. The concept of RYCs is good but in practicality it has flaws (perhaps because it is too much under the auspices of the sponsoring club/organization and not USFA?). Any type of a new format would have to take a look at them and improve on the system. Obviously this cannot be formulated overnight and instituted the next day.
What are the long range plans to accomodate the growth? Surely there must be some somewhere??

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Oh yeah, something has to be done about the results process. While Dan is helpful with the process, he's got other obligations, and there really should be someone, atleast a backup webmaster, who can post things pronto.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by mlr2fence

In some ways, comparing RYCs to a new format is like comparing apples and oranges. The concept of RYCs is good but in practicality it has flaws (perhaps because it is too much under the auspices of the sponsoring club/organization and not USFA?). Any type of a new format would have to take a look at them and improve on the system. Obviously this cannot be formulated overnight and instituted the next day.
What are the long range plans to accomodate the growth? Surely there must be some somewhere??

Well, I was sort of getting at that if the RYC selection and organization process we just used didn't work, then we'd better not try and use it on whatever our NAC supplement becomes.

[mlr2fence]

In my original post I referenced RYCs but with the caveat of "real teeth in it and control" to hopefully address the problems the current RYC system has. No one in their right mind would see any logic in just dumping everything into an 'adult RYC' as it currently is! What we can take from it is what does/does not work and go from there to avoid making the same mistakes over. I believe that we're on the same page with this.

[Padawan]

IMHO, I think that one of the things that is lacking in the USA compared to other successful fencing countries is the lack of facilities compared to the size of the USA population. As a comparison open your phone book and look at the number of martial art facilities that exit in your own city. For every three in your area there should be enough of an interest in martial activities to support one fencing program.

I think that the USFA should examine and explore a business plan that involves providing facilities for fencing throughout the USA. Now before anyone jumps on the band wagon that they are a NFP organization and cannot do this remember so it the United Way, the Red Cross and a whole host of other highly successful organizations. The Red Cross owns a ton of resources to get blood. My staff and I, when I was a manager at RHI, help move and recruit over 1000 accountants to their new shared financial center when they closed the decentralized operations throughout the USA back in 2000. Trust me that was not a cheap idea to pull off. It cost them a fortune in staffing fees. However, the cost saving and economies of scale were enough to justify the costs. NFP does not mean that you run the business less effective than a FP business. It just means that the bottom line profits are earmarked differently.

That being said.

This idea is not easy. Actually it would probably be the hardest business plan ever attempted by the USFA. This is a huge risk for any organization, operating and being responsible for fencing facilities. Does the USFA have the talent now to do it? I don't know, you be the judge. How many people on the staff have run a financially successful independent fencing facility, or multiple ones for that matter? Does this type of talent exist currently in the USA in fencing, maybe? Furthermore, if someone out there has the talent I doubt that they would volunteer their time to make it happen (most of them would complain that there are not enough hours in the day now) or the USFA could pay them enough to do it (no, I don't want the job plus I don't even know if I could be hired by them, interesting question though)

Besides the whole asset accounting and facilities management issues you then have the whole issue of providing staff and employees to worry about. In reading other treads, the thoughts expressed on the national coaches selection and dismissal shows that there is probably some room for improvement. Of course I could be wrong.

So, this is a possibility for the USFA moving forward. Would it work, I don't know. Lord knows that I have been wrong about the fencing community and what it needs in the past. I have opened or help open over 50 fencing facilities since 1992 in both USA and Canada. In the beginning it would require a lot of cash. However, if the model is done correctly it could start turning a substantial profit after 6-8 months. Fencing in the USA has grown a lot since then. I also know that since 1990 a lot of coaching talent has come into the USA from overseas. They need someone to teach and the students need someone to fence.

So, there is my 2 cents worth.

[Feltan]

Dan,

Here are some suggestions:

1. Far more emphasis from the national office on building regional and division strength.
a. Division or regional qualification for NAC attendence.
b. Nationals qualification via NACs. (I mean, does anyone think the current system is sustainable with 1000+ particpants and growing for a NAC?).

2. If the national level adopted #1 above, they could focus on the elite athlete program without trying to manage events that EVERY fencer in the country is interested in. In essence, the USFA is like Major League Baseball, except they are running national little league tournements and the afterwork national softball championship, the concessions at the stadiums, and the minor leage farm system. Delegate. Decentralize. Build your regional and divisonal organizations into something meaningful.

3. Leverage existing technologies. I have no idea why the USFA is not using askFRED. Can't some deal be worked out? Some revenue sharing? Given what I know, I am sure I -- or several other people on this site --could broker a deal. If it is not possible, online registration is not that big of a technology leap -- you could probably get it done if the USFA asked for volunteer labor and set some moderate level requirements as a goal.

4. While communication to members has been mentioned (and effective communication is ALWAYS an issue in every organization), my comment is a bit different: what is the mission of the USFA? How is that mission being addressed -- in details and implementation? From my view point, it seems like you have some very good people who love fencing, but they are wallowing. On one hand they are trying to do too much, but on the other hand are not succeeding at meeting the basic expectations of the members of the organization. If communication is an issue, it is because the executive level of the USFA is not communicating a clear consistent message of what their goals are.

Regards,
Feltan

[JEC]

Originally Posted by Peach

From my observation, the RYCs have shifted some of the intense complaining and Monday-morning quarterbacking from the national level to the regional level, so at least some of the load has been effectively transferred.

Could that be done effectively for Veteran fencing? In Texas, we have about 4-5 regional events, that it has been suggested to have a Southwest Section Veteran Circuit cup. The shift for veterans would only transfer the fun to more frequent intense regional events.