Divisionals f&ck ups

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by tbryan

The point that I was trying to make was that if the division wants to maximize the total number of fencers qualified for Div II and Div III events at Nationals, it seems like the best strategy is to hold a combined Div II and III qualifying event.

Gotcha. I forgot that the D2 qualifiers also qualify for D3 (if they're eligible). Realized that after I'd made the post...

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by CaptainA

That's the whole point of posting results all the way down, and it makes every touch count all day, because if you are a "lower" fencer, who will go out in the DE's, that seeding coming out of pools is pretty important.

Yes, especially if you are the "E" fencer in the pool with an "A", "B" and "C" fencer.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by CaptainA

Instead, it's a bigger, better event, and you get to fence the best fencers in the Division.

A bigger, better event that violates USFA policy. It doesn't MATTER that it's a better event, it's not allowable to have A/B fencers in a D2/3 qualifier.

Originally Posted by CaptainA

You want separate d2, D3, qualifiers, and separate D1 as well?

There is no D1 path through divisions. There isn't even a D1A path through divisions (depending on how sections choose to structure thier events there might be a sectional qualifier at the divisional level -- this should not be the same event as the national D2/3 qualifier due to the mandatory restrictions on who is allowed to fence in those events).

If your section requires a qualifier at the division level to sectionals do I want this to be a separate event from the one that's limited to C and under fencers? Absolutely.

-B

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by CaptainA

Take a look at that table again.

Take a look at the rule again. It explictly forbids A and B fencers in qualifer events for Div II/III nationals.

Originally Posted by CaptainA

Instead, it's a bigger, better event, and you get to fence the best fencers in the Division.

it may be a more interesting event, but it's not a properly run qualifier.

Originally Posted by CaptainA

Bear in mind that half our division travels 480 miles each year to attend the qualifiers. You want separate d2, D3, qualifiers, and separate D1 as well? Better get a vets qualifier as well. In a small division, we don't have a lot of events, because the numberr of qualified fencers doesn't equal the number of slots (U16, U19 for example, for JO qualifiers.)

Why does your division believe it can ignore the rules that other divisions, even other large geographic and lightly populated ones, are required to follow?

Originally Posted by CaptainA

we're dealing with life and the facts,

Yes, the fact that the Nevada Div can't follow the rules.

[CaptainA]

I misspoke. To reply to Oiuyt, it's not the D1 or 1A qualifier, or sectionals, since our section has an open policy now. However, by tradition, this is also the division championships, individual and team, with the attendant prestige and level of intensity.

So, to parse a little bit, it's not the D2/3 qualifier, it's the divisional open championships. The A and B fencers are able to fence that. It appears that the 2/3 qualifiers do get "extracted" from the results, but the same problems I mentioned before still exist, in terms of geography and time.

As to fencerx, I don't understand the issue- what's the Nevada Division ever done to you?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by CaptainA

So, to parse a little bit, it's not the D2/3 qualifier, it's the divisional open championships. The A and B fencers are able to fence that. It appears that the 2/3 qualifiers do get "extracted" from the results, but the same problems I mentioned before still exist, in terms of geography and time.

Okay, it's the Divisional Championships. That's fine. As long as you're willing to bar your A/B fencers from the Championships. Or not use the Championships for D2/3 qualification. You simply aren't allowed to do both in the same event.

-B

[Frank Pratt]

IMO, the qualifiers should be defined as "qualifiers" and the "championships" should be held as a completely different tournament altogether. The Divisional "championships" need to be open to A & B fencers, and I agree that these fencers are clearly banned from Div II/III qualifying events. Robbing the division's best fencers of the opportunity to become the divisional champion would obviously make no sense whatsoever.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Frank Pratt

IMO, the qualifiers should be defined as "qualifiers" and the "championships" should be held as a completely different tournament altogether. The Divisional "championships" need to be open to A & B fencers, and I agree that these fencers are clearly banned from Div II/III qualifying events. Robbing the division's best fencers of the opportunity to become the divisional champion would obviously make no sense whatsoever.

Yes, quite. That was actually my point.

-B

[Mauler]

Originally Posted by CaptainA

As to fencerx, I don't understand the issue- what's the Nevada Division ever done to you?

And I don't understand why that must be an issue at all, that the Nevada Division must have done something to someone for that individual to call foul? FencerX has merely pointed out that an event has been held in violation of the rules, just as Ouiyt has.

Seems to me the easier solution is to divide up the events and schedule them on different weekends and/or locations. Serves to promote rotation, and caters to relevant groups better that way.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Mauler

FencerX has merely pointed out that an event has been held in violation of the rules, just as Ouiyt has.

FencerX's most recent post was a little more...um...combative...than Ouiyt's. At least it could be read that way. Not sure whether that was intended, but maybe that's how CaptainA read it.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Frank Pratt

I agree. I think don't think "D" and under fencers should have to deal with "C" fencers in the pools and DEs at Div III qualifying events. Consider the GA qualifiers for this year. The DivII/III events are separated, but if they were combined, there would be 11 "C" fencers in the event, which would probably translate to 1-2 "C" fencers in each pool. Every single "U", "E", and "D" fencer would therefore have to fence a "C" at least once (probably 2-3 times, in reality) in order to qualify for a D/Under event.

I disagree with the premise that fencing Cs will significantly skew the results. There is, of course, the possibility that a fencer will do badly in pools, and have to fence a very difficult fencer in their first DE, but every single fencer in every tournament faces that risk, except for the winners of the tournament.

For example, once at JO qualifiers, my teammate could easily have beaten, or at least come close to beating, all the fencers in DEs except one. Unfortunately, there were several underranked college fencers, and he wound up in a difficult pool, lost several close bouts, and wound up fencing the one opponent he couldn't beat in his second DE. He didn't qualify. A sad story, to be sure, but that's with all the rules and such being followed. It's a fencer's responsibility to do well in pools, and if he gets unlucky, then he gets unlucky. It happens.