Multi-division tournaments

[jjefferies]

Hi all,
I'm researching information for the BayCup taskforce.
Is anyone aware of any instances where two or more USFA divisions have pooled interests to put on one or more tournaments on a regular basis. I am not interested in Sectional or National events.

[tbryan]

One example - The Chesapeake Challenge CIrcuit

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by tbryan

One example - The Chesapeake Challenge CIrcuit

Those are all tournaments run by individual divisions. The circuit is just a points list over the area.

jjefferies- what types of interests are you talking about pooling?

-B

[seak]

There are common rules though which were agreed to by the various sections

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Those are all tournaments run by individual divisions. The circuit is just a points list over the area.

jjefferies- what types of interests are you talking about pooling?
-B

My apologies Midi also responded that I wasn't very clear about what was being asked.
Background: The BayCup is a series of tournaments, nominally six events in each weapon, both sexes (occasionally mixed as in the vets), in all the groupings. There are three California divisions involved, CenCal, NorCal, Mountain and Valley. You can look it up as <www.thebaycup.org>. I am told it was originated as a way for juniors to get more sharp bouts and tournament practice but it has expanded to cover all the fencing groups. Eric Dew <EDEW> along with Michael Pacheco started and has essentially run it for the past six or seven years. And it has been very successful. Most men's opens are A1-A2 events and even the veterans events are usually A1. The ladies events vary some what more. Point is it has been very successful and then Eric ran afoul of the USFA last year and the USFA became somewhat more aware of the BayCup. There are numerous issues. The BayCup has evolved along the way and Eric had been basically running in an ad hoc manner what the USFA suddenly realized was a very large operation. The monies involved, the assignment of classifications (a major motivator) etc were not directly being controlled by the Divisions which are the USFA's local organs. So the three Division chairs got handed the job of taking control. A BayCup task force has been created to determine what the BayCup is, how it should be run, how many and what kinds of events should there be. I am on that taskforce and in the middle of lots of e-mails being sent back and forth my wife commented to me that we were probably re-inventing the wheel. Which led to my question about has there or is there another similar tournament series or other operation run by multiple divisions?

We would be most interested to learn details of ogranization, formation of boards, assignment of fencer classifications, goals, history of what hasn't worked and why etc.

Hope this clarifies my question. I will look into the one suggested reference.
thanks
Jonathan

[rcmatthews]

Why can't you just have the division where the tournament is held be the hosting division and the other divisions simply support it as they would anyway? What's the big deal?

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

Why can't you just have the division where the tournament is held be the hosting division and the other divisions simply support it as they would anyway? What's the big deal?

In a sense that is what has been happening this year with the three division chairs overseeing the series. We're seeing a decrease in numbers, some (one or two) events have been very poor (all it takes is for that to happen a couple of times and the series dies), and the division chairs aren't all that eager to take over. Fortunately the series schedule was already in place this year when the chairs got hit with this unforseen assignment.

Bottom line is that if the series is managed, i.e. overseen, then it prospers and the fencers get a stronger, better series of events that they can use to improve their skills and classifications. Our experience - so far - is that if you have standards and maintain them then fencers will come. The clubs in particular like to host such events as much for the revenue stream as for the glory of it. So with a managed series we're seeng a critical mass of fencers forming. In some parts of the country outside of New York City an A1 event is rare and only occurs in the opens or fencers have to travel a fair distance to sectional or national events. As I mentioned BayCup events are generally strong. Several years ago we had Cat2 (C and below) events were B1 classification. Veterans events are normally A1 events. Figure six of those a year that you can drive to. What are the chances of you improving your skills and classification?

[misha]

Originally Posted by rcmatthews

Why can't you just have the division where the tournament is held be the hosting division and the other divisions simply support it as they would anyway? What's the big deal?

The big deal is as usual: Politics & Money

There were 3 divisions chairs, who virtually had no control over BayCup
I guess they did not like it

There is money involved. You had to pay $40 to join BayCup to participate in a competition
if you live in the area. This was in addition to usual per/competition fee.
This money was used to pay for admin. costs, medals and prizes at the end of a season.
Top 8 in point standings in each category were receiving fencing equipment/gift certificates.
I think it was one of the important factors to motivate highly ranked fencers to participate.
AFAIK the prizes were up to $300-$500.
Not everybody liked that EDew had control over it.

To understand how valuable BayCup is, just compare it to LA area
(which in my opinion has similar population of fencers),
where competitions are run by divisions separately (Orange County, Southern CA, San Bernardino)
Look at the number of events and their strength (Excluding Long Beach Invitational).

I think BayCup should be run by one person, successful corporations
are usually run by one CEO, not by a "Task Force"

I hope that USFA will end EDew suspension this year and everything will be back to normal

If not, we need to find another candidate who can run it

The BayCup should be used an example of success, not the other way around,
because most likely you will not find anything better at the moment

.

[KD5MDK]

I hope that USFA will end EDew suspension this year and everything will be back to normal

Except that had nothing to do with the Bay Cup, and the two should not be considered together for any meaningful purpose.

[bigdawg2121]

Well if Eric is going to or wants to resume running the Bay Cup they kind of have to be considered together don't they?

[edew]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Except that had nothing to do with the Bay Cup, and the two should not be considered together for any meaningful purpose.

No, my suspension had nothing to do with the Bay Cup. But my suspension did affect the operations of the Bay Cup. Also, the suspension apparently opened up investigations into how the Bay Cup was run.

Let's be frank: certain people were not happy that it was run the way it was. That number was maybe 5. Or 6. The rest of the people: fencers, coaches, club owners, etc., were generally happy with the way things went. It's not perfect, certainly, and changes do have to be made.

Still, the extent of changes need not involve kowtowing to USFA as much as JJefferies thinks they do.

[EricC]

im an eric too. there will always be jerks. keep doing the good things even if douches say otherwise. its your baycup.

[misha]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Except that had nothing to do with the Bay Cup, and the two should not be considered together for any meaningful purpose.

Exactly my point!

But USFA officials think the opposite


.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by misha

Exactly my point!

But USFA officials think the opposite

I don't think so. While Eric's suspension is due to expire at the end of this season (actually I don't know whether the year dates to the end of the season, from the date of the incidents, or from the date of the suspension decision (September)), I don't believe that the USFA would consider it acceptable for the situation to return to the form that it was in prior to this season.

The suspension made the National Office and EC aware of how things were structured in the SF area. It wasn't because of the suspension that things were required to change, the suspension merely drew attention.

-B

[misha]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I don't believe that the USFA would consider it acceptable for the situation to return to the form that it was in prior to this season.
...
-B

Would you please enlighten us
what exactly in BayCup is wrong in USFA eyes?


.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by misha

Would you please enlighten us
what exactly in BayCup is wrong in USFA eyes?

There have already been a couple threads about this.
But really: the Bay Cup was a very well run series of competitions that did a lot for Bay Area fencing, but existed outside of the USFA hierarchy.
So long as its "rogue status" was kept quiet, everybody was happy.
But Eric's lecherous ways drew attention to his little rebellion of autonomy, so obviously the USFA now has to do something to reassert its power.
An organizing body cannot let someone within its constituency create his own organizing body--even if it's successful (particularly when its successful). To do so would threaten its power and invalidate its existence--the USFA cannot say, "We're the organizing body--we create the structure, rules, bureaucracy--of fencing in the US, except in the Bay Area."
The first job of any governing body is to protect its power.

[KD5MDK]

I believe one issue was with the Bay Cup membership fee.

[edew]

It was never and is never a "membership" fee. It is a registration fee no different than what you pay as a registration fee for competing at various major events such as NACs and such. We use the word, "member" to state that one has registered. We could have used the word, "registrant" or "registered" to denote those who have paid the registration fee.

[KD5MDK]

Right. But I believe the issue was with requiring this separate fee payment in order to fence in USFA sanctioned events.

[schlager7]

Actually, drawing on the meeting with USFA officials over issues in our my own division, it was more the case of an entity outside of and overlapping the divisions that was organizing its own tournaments and issuing classification changes. I know it was a big deal at our meeting.

As Donald Alperstein put it, the division owns all the tournaments. The clubs, LOCs or Bay Cup (pick your favorite in your area) do not. They hold them at the discretion of the division.

Given that perspective, I believe the USFA was taking issue with an agent other than the division operating a parallel struture, with memberships (as they perceive it), the awarding of tournament hosting priviledges and awarding classification changes.

I'm wording this badly, but bear with me.

Please correct me, Eric, if I'm off. It is just that we had a similar-but-different issue that USFA came in on, but their main points were such I can see what probably set them off with the Bay Cup as it was organized.

It can probably continue, but only with considerable teamwork from the divisions involved.