USACFC Review

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

To my knowledge NECCFL hasn't had an event over the past three seasons (it MIGHT just be the past 2). Makes it harder to use as a qualifying conference. The NE conferences generally cited are NEIFC/NEWIFA (men's/women's equivalents to each other) or NFC (similar but slightly different membership). They have noticibly different restrictions on who is allowed to fence than the USACFC does. They both consist about 50% of NCAA varsity programs (may or may not be a problem, depending on how things are structured and is similarly true of other conferences such as MACFA, NIWFA, etc). Membership to those conferences requires approval of the existing membership, which could pose a problem for new club teams, especially those unable to field full 9-person teams (NFC especially has historically looked very unfavorably on partial teams, including until recently a policy of suspending and then expelling teams that arrived at meets with less than a full team).

I haven't read most of the other stuff that was posted during my nap, however, i do want to address this before dinner:

It is my project over the next year to recreate the NECCFL. ........... This may be difficult, since the fall of the NECCFL coincides with me getting to college, and I have thus never been at such an event....... but I'm not going to let silly things like that get in my way. any advice/interest in such a thing is welcome, and should probably be emailed to me. (go to my profile, hit the "email MP" thing....)

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

any advice/interest in such a thing is welcome, and should probably be emailed to me. (go to my profile, hit the "email MP" thing....)

Of course following those directions yields this message:

Sorry! That user has specified that they do not wish to receive emails. If you still wish to send an email to this user, please contact the administrator and they may be able to help.

I'll PM you instead.

-B

[KD5MDK]

The push for regionalization comes from the fact that with any reasonable format that's even close to what we currently use we run into space limitations with only slightly more growth. As shown by the problems with the NACs this is eventually true even with formats that the USACFC would consider completely unacceptable (due to the relatively low number of bouts -- an average of 5-6 pool bouts and 2 DE's) that growth will eventually overwhelm available venues. At some point we MUST limit the number of teams participating in nationals.

Whether we are at that point now or whether modifications to the format will postpone that date (perhaps for long enough that we hit an equilibrium where new teams aren't interested in joining the event) is debateable. Whether regionalization is too much trouble/work/bother and has other disadvantages that outweigh the benefits depends in part on what compromises to the format are possible, how different people balance the disadvantages to an inferior format vs the disadvantages of exclusion, and a host of other non-trivial discussion points.

At some point, the USACFC will be too big to have a practical tournament under any terms if it is 100% participation. That's clear. At that point, a fixed tournament size, fixed format and clear qualification path seem appropriate. The problem is in the marginal zone. Let's say that the selected tournament limit is 36 teams. Now, let's say 38 teams want to attend. How can you fairly pick which 2 teams are not qualified? Even if you held regional qualifiers, there'd almost certainly be Northeast, South Atlantic, Southwest, Midwest? and Pacific regionals (going from the predicted teams), which 3 Regions get 100% qualification and which 2 do not? What requirements should there be to join? Perhaps preference should be given to complete 6WT schools, and then filled with complete 3WT schools, and then remaining slots can go to 2WTs if necessary. Not sure what to say about 4 or 5WTs, though.

It does, although this is not technically what the words he wrote mean. "have only (1) alternate per slot." means 3 to 6 fencers on a squad.

I caught that, although it seemed nitpicky to point it out so soon.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

At some point, the USACFC will be too big to have a practical tournament under any terms if it is 100% participation. That's clear. At that point, a fixed tournament size, fixed format and clear qualification path seem appropriate. The problem is in the marginal zone. Let's say that the selected tournament limit is 36 teams. Now, let's say 38 teams want to attend. How can you fairly pick which 2 teams are not qualified? Even if you held regional qualifiers, there'd almost certainly be Northeast, South Atlantic, Southwest, Midwest? and Pacific regionals (going from the predicted teams), which 3 Regions get 100% qualification and which 2 do not? What requirements should there be to join? Perhaps preference should be given to complete 6WT schools, and then filled with complete 3WT schools, and then remaining slots can go to 2WTs if necessary. Not sure what to say about 4 or 5WTs, though.

Well that can easily be solved by having the tournament be noticibly smaller than recently-experienced sizes. Limit the field to 18 men's teams and 12 women's teams and every region losses people. Whether that's a preferred solution depends on a lot of other factors.

6W qualification would be a big problem for schools like Smith (which have VERY few students of one gender or the other) or Temple, Northwestern, Cornell, Tuft's, James Madison, etc. (which are limited to a single gender by USACFC rules).

Another idea that's been floated is to have it be qualfiication by squad rather than by 3W/6W team. Problem is similar to the one at NCAA's where only teams snagging the full allocation of slots have a realistic shot at the title (11-person teams have an outside chance). Realistically, there are a number of strong teams that should have no trouble qualifying all 3/6 squads with any reasonable qualification method, which minimizes this issue. Nice thing is that it (barring scratches) assures equal numbers of each type of squad, which can be formed into ad hoc teams (schools that have all three squads form a complete team, partial schools are paired up to make composite "teams" for scheduling purposes).

Much of the qualification can be done via the Championships result. Say give the top X teams (3W and/or 6W) auto slots for all squads, the top Y squads auto slots, and then fill out the field with qualification from the regional qualifiers and/or at-large selection by a designated panel. At least that way half (or more) of the field might know a full year in advance that they are qualified and can start the appropriate planning/fund-raising.

Prior to Bruce's message there were a couple of posts with a number of questions that need to be answered before a reasonable regionalization plan can be formed and agreed upon. There are at least as many more that haven't been included in this thread.

Whether we are at the point where regionalization is required is not a settled question. How big we want the Championships to be is not settled. Whether having open regions and qualifer-based nationals constitutes something close enough to "all inclusive" to satisfy goal #4 on Bruce's list is debateable. Whether or not Bruce's list accurately reflects the actual goals of the organization as a whole is debateable. Look at goal #6. Now go re-read Dekko's post #75. There's a reason why MLB included "natural rivalries" as a special case when designing interleague play (whether you like or dislike interleague play, ensuring the the Yankees/Mets, ChiSox/Cubs, A's/Giants, etc. always meet was a nice touch). DJApostrophe posted a list of goal-forming questions way up on this thread that really need to be answered.

-B

[KD5MDK]

6W qualification would be a big problem for schools like Smith (which have VERY few students of one gender or the other) or Temple, Northwestern, Cornell, Tuft's, James Madison, etc. (which are limited to a single gender by USACFC rules).

My assumption was that full 6WT schools would be a somewhat limited scope, given it requires fencers, gear and expenses for 18 fencers + alternates and staff, and so there would be lots of slots for 3WT schools like Smith, Temple, etc. I could easily be wrong.

In any event, given the number of topics considered "in need of deciding", perhaps deciding which depend on each other and thus an order to go in would help.

[Wafath]

I think we might be better off discussing qualifying, regionals, and other limitation strategies as a seperate topic to that of format. But both should be discussed, and now is as good a time as any.

Format should probably be discussed in terms of size. It is reasonable to say that the format should be X if fewer than N teams are present, and Y if N to N1 teams are present, etc. We should also consider format in terms of number of strips available.

But enough meta-conversation, if I were to rate priorities in what USACFC should rank:

1) 3W team
2) squad
3) individual
4) 6W team

How would others prioritize this list?

W

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Wafath

1) 3W team
2) squad
3) individual
4) 6W team

I can't help but notice that all of the prioritized goals on your list are naming-of-champions type goals. Do all of the omitted goals or possible goals come below these four? Are so insignificant as to not warrant placement? Are important but didn't happen to be listed due to being overlooked? Should be on a different list, this is merely the list of prioritizing of champion-focus goals? Something else?

Other goals could include supporting fencing in general, collegiate fencing in specific, providing competitive opportunity, gathering together several hundred like-minded college students for a fun, activity-filled, weekend, for promotional purposes (of the schools, of fencing, of the association, of collegiate fencing, etc.), fundraising, fostering and supporting nascent collegiate fencing clubs, etc., etc.

-B

[Wafath]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I can't help but notice that all of the prioritized goals on your list are naming-of-champions type goals. Do all of the omitted goals or possible goals come below these four? Are so insignificant as to not warrant placement? Are important but didn't happen to be listed due to being overlooked? Should be on a different list, this is merely the list of prioritizing of champion-focus goals? Something else?

Other goals could include supporting fencing in general, collegiate fencing in specific, providing competitive opportunity, gathering together several hundred like-minded college students for a fun, activity-filled, weekend, for promotional purposes (of the schools, of fencing, of the association, of collegiate fencing, etc.), fundraising, fostering and supporting nascent collegiate fencing clubs, etc., etc.

Yes, of course. But I felt that for determining the format we are better off focusing on what we are trying to determine. Obviously the format could heavily depend upon the other goals, but for those goals we have a requirements document. The next step is to work on plans that fit the requirements, or to change the requirements. I suggest we try the former before we try the later.

In short, I think it is better to break down the problem into pieces, and attack them seperately.

W

[DJ Apostrophe]

Originally Posted by Wafath

Yes, of course. But I felt that for determining the format we are better off focusing on what we are trying to determine. Obviously the format could heavily depend upon the other goals, but for those goals we have a requirements document. The next step is to work on plans that fit the requirements, or to change the requirements. I suggest we try the former before we try the later.

In short, I think it is better to break down the problem into pieces, and attack them seperately.

W

I agree, and disagree... breaking the problem down and taking a step by step approach to get to your answer is obviously the way to go (it generally is for almost any problem).

However, I believe the questions I asked (amongst others) need to be answered by the conference, BEFORE we can go forward and discuss options for a format... doing otherwise would be putting the cart before the horse in my eyes.

This is why companies and other organizations have mission statements... as trite and contrived as they usually are... it can give some guidance when you are trying to answer questions.

The first question that needs to be answered is "What is the USACFC trying to achieve?" After you've answered that question, you can begin to decide HOW you are going to achieve whatever it is you are trying to achieve.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a GREAT event and I fully support its continued existance and growth... but I feel that before things get too out of hand, the conference needs to decide where it wants to go, as right now it seems to me that 'hey! lets have a big tournament to decide a club champion!' is about as much direction as it has at times.

Bruce, Jon, Brad and everyone else involved have done a ton of work to get this event off the ground and now that the event has proved to fill a niche in the market and grown, it is somewhat a victim of its own success. That's probably a little strong, but the conference is experiencing some growing pains that need to be dealt with so that the entire concept of a collegiate club nationals can thrive and grow.

The first step HAS to be to decide what you are trying to do and where you are trying to go... otherwise you permanently put yourself behind the eight ball.

Discussing format at this point is, i feel, very premature, as there are at least fifty different ways you can go, and all of them have thier merits, but until you decide what you are trying to get out of the tournament, you don't have a guiding theory to help you choose one over the other... just what some people 'like' or think would be 'more interesting', or 'more fun'. All of which have thier points, but lets narrow the focus first.

Just my thoughts.

-w

[dekko]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

At some point, the USACFC will be too big to have a practical tournament under any terms if it is 100% participation. That's clear. At that point, a fixed tournament size, .......

Why does this conversation sound hauntingly familiar.

Funny on the drive home from this event I had two prevailing thoughts that really stuck with me.

1. There are far too few large team events in this country. With about 95% of us techinically considered recreational whether we wish to admit it or not, team events are great, full of energy and passion. I do wish it were possible to have more large team events other than nationals, NCAAs, and this event.

2. Over the past couple of years I have noticed a scary trend I hope changes sooner rather than later. Whether it's nationals, NACs, USACFC, sectionals or divisionals they all have one thing in common, lack of proper resources to make the events happen the way they truely should. KD5s comments sound a great deal like those of NACs and nationals. Hate to break to everyone but, hold on to your hats, fencing is growing everywhere at every level. It seems as though the events listed above, although they have good and smart people running and organizing them, they seem to fall short when it comes to size of venue, number of refs and good scheduling. Very few of these events end when they are supposed to and have at least one event or another that is delayed in a massive way. I may be echoing a message of the past, very likely, but it's time for those who organize and run these events to realize the numbers, no matter how anyone tries to limit them, are going no where but up up up up up up up. Every attempt to limit these events brings more numbers. Very few events drop in number from year to year. Time to embrace the numbers and rent the bigger room, hire more refs, get more armourers, and get more strips.

Regionalization won't work, limiting qualifiers won't work, cutting events, won't work, getting a bigger place and more strips/refs/etc will.

I personally hope that this collegiate events has 60, or more, teams and 45, or more, strips next year and becomes the biggest non-NAC/nationals event around. And yes, I will volunteer to help run it.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by dekko

Why does this conversation sound hauntingly familiar.

Funny on the drive home from this event I had two prevailing thoughts that really stuck with me.

1. There are far too few large team events in this country. With about 95% of us techinically considered recreational whether we wish to admit it or not, team events are great, full of energy and passion. I do wish it were possible to have more large team events other than nationals, NCAAs, and this event.

2. Over the past couple of years I have noticed a scary trend I hope changes sooner rather than later. Whether it's nationals, NACs, USACFC, sectionals or divisionals they all have one thing in common, lack of proper resources to make the events happen the way they truely should. KD5s comments sound a great deal like those of NACs and nationals. Hate to break to everyone but, hold on to your hats, fencing is growing everywhere at every level. It seems as though the events listed above, although they have good and smart people running and organizing them, they seem to fall short when it comes to size of venue, number of refs and good scheduling. Very few of these events end when they are supposed to and have at least one event or another that is delayed in a massive way. I may be echoing a message of the past, very likely, but it's time for those who organize and run these events to realize the numbers, no matter how anyone tries to limit them, are going no where but up up up up up up up. Every attempt to limit these events brings more numbers. Very few events drop in number from year to year. Time to embrace the numbers and rent the bigger room, hire more refs, get more armourers, and get more strips.

Regionalization won't work, limiting qualifiers won't work, cutting events, won't work, getting a bigger place and more strips/refs/etc will.

I personally hope that this collegiate events has 60, or more, teams and 45, or more, strips next year and becomes the biggest non-NAC/nationals event around. And yes, I will volunteer to help run it.

That's a whole lot of fencing though.....

[noodle]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

That's a whole lot of fencing though.....

which is why we're discussing format change.

[seak]

Here's a question: What do people want more: a) to fence every team there or b) to stay together as a team

Advantage to A is you fence every other A there, disadvantage you would no longer be with your team

Advantage to B is your team stays together, disadvantage you fence a smaller portion of the teams there

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by dekko

Why does this conversation sound hauntingly familiar.

Probably, not to seem a bit flippant, because it faces the core problem of fencing organizers right now, across levels.

1. There are far too few large team events in this country. With about 95% of us techinically considered recreational whether we wish to admit it or not, team events are great, full of energy and passion. I do wish it were possible to have more large team events other than nationals, NCAAs, and this event.

Quite fair. Adding team events is a good idea and something that ought to happen. What size suits you for "large", and how many do you think fit into the schedule? For example, would an 8-10 team Regional Qualifier for USACFC be big enough, or are you looking for a larger scale?

2. Over the past couple of years I have noticed a scary trend I hope changes sooner rather than later. Whether it's nationals, NACs, USACFC, sectionals or divisionals they all have one thing in common, lack of proper resources to make the events happen the way they truely should. KD5s comments sound a great deal like those of NACs and nationals. Hate to break to everyone but, hold on to your hats, fencing is growing everywhere at every level. It seems as though the events listed above, although they have good and smart people running and organizing them, they seem to fall short when it comes to size of venue, number of refs and good scheduling. Very few of these events end when they are supposed to and have at least one event or another that is delayed in a massive way. I may be echoing a message of the past, very likely, but it's time for those who organize and run these events to realize the numbers, no matter how anyone tries to limit them, are going no where but up up up up up up up. Every attempt to limit these events brings more numbers. Very few events drop in number from year to year. Time to embrace the numbers and rent the bigger room, hire more refs, get more armourers, and get more strips.

Regionalization won't work, limiting qualifiers won't work, cutting events, won't work, getting a bigger place and more strips/refs/etc will.

I personally hope that this collegiate events has 60, or more, teams and 45, or more, strips next year and becomes the biggest non-NAC/nationals event around. And yes, I will volunteer to help run it.

The problem is that tournament costs (and challenges) do not scale linearly with size. The US already has the most expensive tournaments in the world, I believe, and the costs involved are staggering to those unfamiliar. I believe the coffee budget alone for a 4 day NAC is around $1000. Convention centers cost big money. In general, NACs lose money, and the only way the USFA doesn't lose money overall on tournaments is Summer Nationals gets large economies of scale by lasting 10 days. (Days worked per flight is larget, equipment doesn't have to be transported more, etc)
For a NAC, each referee costs something like $1000, minimum. There's a $3-400 flight, at least. 4-5 nights in hotel at $99/night. Per diem of at least $100 ($20x5 days, sometimes 6). Honorarium of between the same (for a 6) $20/day, for a 4-5 $45/day, etc. Then there's the charge the hotel or convention center makes for 2 meals a day for all of them, and so forth.
There are an expanding number of referees in the US, and that's a good thing. However, they do have limited vacation time, and other lives to get on with.

Right now, I understand that USACFCs are being held in a place mostly free to their host club, on university property. If they have to start paying for the kind of venue that holds 45 strips, that's going to be a very big price increase. There are only so many referees in an area. Sure we could hold it in NJ everytime, but if it travels around, well, 30 strips would take a significant fraction of the skilled referees in Texas, and I suspect similar issues in other regions. (and you can only ask people to drive for about 8 hours to referee. Past that, they start demanding to fly.)

I do not tournament sizes can just continue to expand. I think what we need are more, not mostly bigger.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by seak

Here's a question: What do people want more: a) to fence every team there or b) to stay together as a team

Advantage to A is you fence every other A there, disadvantage you would no longer be with your team

Advantage to B is your team stays together, disadvantage you fence a smaller portion of the teams there

I want to stay together as a team.

I have lots of opportunities to fence a million good people. I have almost no opportunities to fence a bunch of good people with the rest of my team there to cheer me on.

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

That's a whole lot of fencing though.....

you say that like it's a BAD thing...

[KShan5[PrFC]]

It is a bad thing....at least 28 rounds is

[fencerbill]

The new Tufts gym could probably hold 30 strips and there is a very large pool of refs available in the Boston area. Even Mauler fits within your 8 hour drive criterion.