USACFC Review

[KD5MDK]

Right, much clearer.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

*WOOOOOOSH* *MP looks up, wondering where the 747 came from*

i was merely clearing up which definition i was using. tangentally, since i grew up about half a mile from an airport, i might not notice an airplane until i was crushed under it.




Somewhat unsuprisingly, I don't think it should be done as 6 weapon teams. That would unfairly penalize both... um... Smith (single weapon team due to single sex school), and the schools who only have men's teams due to their women being NCAA.


One thing that frustrated me was finding out that school after school blatently didn't have one squad, or had 2 people in each weapon. I'm all for understanding that there are sometimes when your third epeeist broke her leg... I guess that i feel that this event is much more developmental than NCAAs, but if you can't field 9 women, maybe you shouldn't have a women's team that goes to nationals? I didn't pay close attention to men's, but from what i saw, small squads were not as frequent in the men's events. is this true, or was i just not paying attention? why? does anyone want to convince me why having teams with one women's sabre fencer is beneficial to the teams or the conference?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

does anyone want to convince me why having teams with one women's sabre fencer is beneficial to the teams or the conference?

Sure....they're paying dues too

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

Sure....they're paying dues too

but are dues enough to cover the costs associated with having those extra rounds? i could cut out at least 5 women's teams, which would make the day shorter, require fewer refs and strips........ not as much paperwork.....

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

but are dues enough to cover the costs associated with having those extra rounds? i could cut out at least 5 women's teams, which would make the day shorter, require fewer refs and strips........ not as much paperwork.....

good point
next year we cut the tournament down to just clemson
yay we win!

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Originally Posted by noodle

good point
next year we cut the tournament down to just clemson
yay we win!

I always knew we could do it

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by noodle

good point
next year we cut the tournament down to just clemson
yay we win!

*rolls eyes*

cost benefit analysis, people. yes, you cut costs dramatically. sadly, you also cut benefits.

there is somewhere in the middle, where a certain number of teams are provided services for a certain amount of money that provides peak benefits for all involved.

of course, you have to define all costs and all benefits.

just having those teams pay dues does not, in my eyes, justify having them there. add some more stuff, and maybe, sure.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

*rolls eyes*

cost benefit analysis, people. yes, you cut costs dramatically. sadly, you also cut benefits.

there is somewhere in the middle, where a certain number of teams are provided services for a certain amount of money that provides peak benefits for all involved.

of course, you have to define all costs and all benefits.

just having those teams pay dues does not, in my eyes, justify having them there. add some more stuff, and maybe, sure.

smaller, incomplete teams were grouped up to save rounds.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by noodle

smaller, incomplete teams were grouped up to save rounds.

which was brilliant, and i can tell you that i both noticed and appreciated it.

on the other hand, there were a lot of schools that JUST didn't have a C slot in sabre, or a B and C slot in sabre. It wasn't a problem for me, but when my C slot was only fencing every other round for a while.... it's a bad enough format to stay warmed up in under the best of circumstances.... it's horrible to be the C slot. I had 18 bouts, sabre C had 13.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

which was brilliant, and i can tell you that i both noticed and appreciated it.

on the other hand, there were a lot of schools that JUST didn't have a C slot in sabre, or a B and C slot in sabre. It wasn't a problem for me, but when my C slot was only fencing every other round for a while.... it's a bad enough format to stay warmed up in under the best of circumstances.... it's horrible to be the C slot. I had 18 bouts, sabre C had 13.

and... so?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by noodle

and... so?

Having teams with (for example) 3 sabre fencers, 2 foilists, and an epeeist will result in a slower tournament than if the same school fielded 3 sabre fencers and 3 foilists (with the epeeist converted for the weekend).

Which is better depends on the goals of the tournament (back to DJA's questions).

An argument can easily be made that if we're looking to crown a 3W/6W teams then requiring full teams is beneficial to the event (removing the partial teams that have no shot at a title leads to a more evenly paced and smaller (read: more manageable) event). Similarly if we're prioritizing squad rankings with requiring full squads. If we're trying to support all collegiate club fencing at whatever level we can find it then allowing an individual epeeist to enter as her school's "team" is a Good Thing. Goes back to what we want ot achieve with the tournament.

Having all rounds be the same (9 bouts, 3 in each weapon) will tend to yield the highest strip efficiency for a given number of bouts fenced. It also helps avoid potential problems where a C-strip fencer gets unlucky and hits 3-4 bye rounds in a row because the partial teams happened to clump randomly. (Note: with care this can be checked for and avoided, but it DOES take a careful extra step and can be defeated by last-minute changes of which there are always plenty)

-B

[Wafath]

A few years ago, I would have said that we should not bar partial squads or teams; it is supposed to be developmental, and a means of encouraging club teams. Now I think the conference is mature enough to phase in a requirement. I would suggest using the NIWFA rule: you must start the competition with complete squads, but you don't have to have three squads. It may mean a lower quality of fencing in some C-spots, because in the case Oiuyt mentioned, the team would either move their epeeist into the foil C spot, or their foilests into the epee B&C spots. (depending on who had a better change for individuals.)

The 6-weapon team ranking is not a target of the competition, but more a side-effect of being able to calculate the two 3-weapon teams. But maybe teams that are either all men or all women should be left out of the 6-w listing.

W

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

What sorts of differences do you see arising from different priorities? (Excluding individual champions, we'll assume the other 3 are with regards to team events)
What would you do differently if the primary goal was to promote collegiate club fencing as opposed to crowning a 6W champ, or 3W champ?

If the goal is to promote club fencing, you want a fully open event where all comers are welcome, and thus must develop a format which can handle that (not easy). If the point is to crown champions, then the answer may be regional qualifiers.

-m

[Wafath]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

If the goal is to promote club fencing, you want a fully open event where all comers are welcome, and thus must develop a format which can handle that (not easy). If the point is to crown champions, then the answer may be regional qualifiers.

-m

If all you wanted to do was promote club fencing, you could just have a big individual tournament, and assign team points on how your individual fencers did. (or top 3 fencers did)

Advantage: there is a lot of knowledge on how to run big individual tournaments, and with enough refs and strips, could be finished with huge numbers in roughly c+log n time. (vs n time for a round-robin of teams).

Disadvantage: It's no longer a team tournament.

Amusment: Watching coaches try to spit themselves into a dozen different pieces on those rare moments when all of your fencers are up.

W

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Wafath

Amusment: Watching coaches try to spit themselves into a dozen different pieces on those rare moments when all of your fencers are up.

In terms of schadenfreude, absolutely amusing. i don't, however, think that it would be rare.

[MyraTrue]

One thing that frustrated me was finding out that school after school blatently didn't have one squad, or had 2 people in each weapon. I'm all for understanding that there are sometimes when your third epeeist broke her leg... I guess that i feel that this event is much more developmental than NCAAs, but if you can't field 9 women, maybe you shouldn't have a women's team that goes to nationals? I didn't pay close attention to men's, but from what i saw, small squads were not as frequent in the men's events. is this true, or was i just not paying attention? why? does anyone want to convince me why having teams with one women's sabre fencer is beneficial to the teams or the conference?

You raise a valid point MP. I know Purdue had some major issues fielding enough warm bodies. We had no C's on the women's teams. At all. I attended the first 3 years of Nationals, and had a C fencer for only the second year. I remember how bad I felt being the A fencer (and getting my arse handed to me on a platter), and watching my C fencer get almost NO bouts. It isn't particularly fair to the C fencers who do attend.

On the other hand, I know that by this time in the semester, most of us are hurting in the academic arena. I agree with Bruce Capin that if this matters enough to you to go, you'll find a way. But spring semester is a run of almost every single weekend leading up to Nationals being an away tournament, or a two-day home event, and a lot of our students are hurting enough that paying money to go and miss 2 days of classes and a weekend... well, they don't want to.

Likewise, it's a painful experience to lose the old fencers and find yourself green and wet behind the ears fencing the A slot, just for the lack of bodies, and perhaps the lack of experienced bodies. I just don't see a solution, thought I'd like one. On the other hand, I'd also like to see Purdue able to field full squads this coming year. The flying to Texas will both help and hinder that.

[little_old_me]

Originally Posted by Wafath

If all you wanted to do was promote club fencing, you could just have a big individual tournament, and assign team points on how your individual fencers did. (or top 3 fencers did)

Advantage: there is a lot of knowledge on how to run big individual tournaments, and with enough refs and strips, could be finished with huge numbers in roughly c+log n time. (vs n time for a round-robin of teams).

Disadvantage: It's no longer a team tournament.

Amusment: Watching coaches try to spit themselves into a dozen different pieces on those rare moments when all of your fencers are up.

W

This is how the SAC was run this year at Virginia Tech. I thought it ran fairly smoothly. There were some bout comittee snags, but that was no one person's fault and it certainly wasn't because of the format.

[DJ Apostrophe]

the SAC?

Collegiate conference?

What teams are involved?

Has it ever been run with IFA format?

-w

[Wafath]

Originally Posted by DJ Apostrophe

the SAC?

Collegiate conference?

What teams are involved?

Has it ever been run with IFA format?

South Atlantic Conference

It was formed with some intention of being regionals for USACFC, if we go that direction.

This year the schools that participated are:
Clemson University, Eastern Carolina University, Hollins University, North Carolina State University, Temple University, United Stated Naval Acadamy, University of Florida, University of Georgia, University of Mary Washington, University of Maryland, University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, & William and Mary.

It is only two years old, and IFA format has never been attempted with it.

W