Should Sections be Reapportioned?

[SurfingFoil]

In reviewing sectional results, I noticed huge discrepancies in size across the country. It seems as the North Atlantic and Mid Atlantic Section have become HUGE! For example in U19 ME these results were posted on the internet: NorthA - 75 competitors, MidA - 58 competitors, Metro - 7 competitors, RockyM - 31 competitors, Pacific NW - 14 competitors, Great Lakes - 7 competitors. The difference in the other events (Div 1A and weapons) are similar.
I know a main argument would be that the large sections have better tournaments but they also have fencers that will not qualify when they are superior to thier counterparts who do from smaller sections. It is a qualifier not a NAC.
Sections only sponsor two events all year. Are they really even needed?

[Preacher]

You pose sound questions that are thoughtful and insightful. I too have noticed this problem. One of the things we must be aware of when thinking about these questions is how best to accomodate some of the actions the USFA could implement. One could divide the divisions in those dense areas into even smaller divisions. But in doing so the USFA would be faced with a new challenge. The challenge that would now be structurally in their way would be the new influx of people qualifying. As it stands now there is inadequite time, space, and man power to handle the fencers that are qualifying. Another way to look at the differences is not on whether who is better then who in sectionals across the states but who is better division agianst division. Think of it being more like a world cup or the olympics. By having sectional quals the division is putting forward its best members to represent them to compete agianst another divisions best and brightest.
-O

[bigdawg2121]

25% is still 25%. There are always going to be good areas and areas that are worse. There will always be places that lack the resources or talent and that can't be fixed by changing the boundaries. Some sections should probably be ammended, Rocky Mountain and Southeast for example, just b/c they're geographically large and oftentimes warrant air travel for basic sectional events. If I understand correctly though the reason for section sizes being what they are is to keep the number of fencers fairly even. At the end of the day I think the competitions even out, whether you're in MidAtlantic, NothAtlantic, or wherever. You might have to work a little harder to qualify, that's all.

[mlr2fence]

Another possible way to look at it is that fencers in the number heavy sections (i.e. N Atl, M Atl , etc) have a 'better' chance of being automatic qualifiers. They have more fencers therefore a greater variety of people to bout so they achieve a higher level of skill, more tournaments to attend, etc than someone in a fencer poor section. Yes, it might be harder to qual thru sectionals because of the increased number, but the top won't even attend since they are already qualified. Its still the top 25% of a large (population, not geographic) and a small section that qualified but the larger might not have its top people there where as the less populous will.

[SurfingFoil]

In the Metro division 3 of the 7 fencers qualified. That's over 40%. How can Metro be so small when the adjacent sections are so large? Hudson Berkshire Division which includes Westchester County fences in North Atlantic Section and is a stones throw from Metro as is the Long Island Division. Surely NJ & Philly divisions are equal to the size of Metro and yet they share a section.There are no geographical boundaries that should allow this. Goodness knows there is affordable and plentiful transportation readily available into Manhattan from any of the above listed divisions. This is about parity or rather the lack of.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by SurfingFoil

In the Metro division 3 of the 7 fencers qualified. That's over 40%. How can Metro be so small when the adjacent sections are so large? Hudson Berkshire Division which includes Westchester County fences in North Atlantic Section and is a stones throw from Metro as is the Long Island Division. Surely NJ & Philly divisions are equal to the size of Metro and yet they share a section.There are no geographical boundaries that should allow this. Goodness knows there is affordable and plentiful transportation readily available into Manhattan from any of the above listed divisions. This is about parity or rather the lack of.

To be correct, Westchester County is NOT a part of Hudson-Berkshire. It's a part of Westchester-Rockland Division (which IS in the North Atlantic Section, so the rest of the point holds true).

I'm not sure what you mean by "there are no geographical boundaries that should allow this." We have geographical boundaries. They're well defined. They "allow" this.

-B

[SurfingFoil]

I apololgize to Wetschester County fencers for the error.
As far as geographical boundaries, I meant the sheer size as was mentioned in a previous post about the Rocky Mtn Division. Most everyone in the NJ Division, Long Island Division and WestRock Division can be in the Metro Division within an hour or two depending on traffic.
Also as automatics go, many don't even fence in qualifiers. When they do they don't always help add addtional qualifiers because they don't make it into the qualifying range. Check out Mid Atlantic Sectionals results for several examples that wouldn't have qualified had it been a qualifier for them.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by SurfingFoil

Check out Mid Atlantic Sectionals results for several examples that wouldn't have qualified had it been a qualifier for them.

Including myself. :)

-B

[DHCJr]

Let us look at the largest in size and the smallest in size. You want to even out the Sections by population. The Pacific North West is one of the smallest. But don't try telling them you want to make their area bigger. They are already complaining it is too big and getting to qualifiers is a problem.

Now the Metro division is historical. If fact, it used to be if no division requested the Nationals it went to Metro. Would it make sense to put the Metro Division in another Section? Probably, but this sport is based on tradition, so there may be a fight.

[SurfingFoil]

If we couldn't send you (oiuyt) to represent our section it would be tantamount to a criminal action. And why, because you had one bad day, bout, touch?
Maybe qualifiers should be cumulative based on divisional results and sectional results, etc. An adaptation of how they do the points list. You could then cut out petitions all together.

[bigdawg2121]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does not the metro division/section have large enough number to warrant them being their own section? Who shows up to the qualifier isn't really the point, lots of fencers in that area don't have to qualify for anything so they don't show up, it's nothing new. On the other hand you could have Metro be like other sections and have everyone show up and then you'd have a nice little mini-NAC where the number of qualifiers goes down to something outlandishly near the bottom of the list.

[Redblade]

Unlike the U.S. Congress, there doesn't seem to be much of a need for the USFA to emphasize regional population ratio representation among its membership. We would have to decide if a strong enough argument exists to go to the trouble to "redistrict" divisions and/or sections, because at first blush the cost (time/money/effort) to do a fair job would appear to outweigh potential benefits.

My gut feeling is that it would be helpful to redesign our organizational map to strengthen competition in more areas throughout the country. Is that feeling justified? (shrug) Dunno. And the harsh reality of unevenly distributed population densities is a huge obstacle to such an effort anyway.

[trazom]

I think its because the fencing population has changed over time. See this thread
( http://www.fencing.net/forums/post372290-1.html )

I took the spreadsheet from that post and did a few calculations. Among the changes over this timeframe:
The three divisions which had the biggest positive change in percentage of all fencers were New England, Northeast, and Gulf Coast.
The three divisions which had the biggest negative change in percentage of all fencers were Metropolitan, Minnesota, and New Jersey.

Metro used to have 6% of all fencers, now it has 3.4%. New Jersey used to have 7.6% of all fencers, now it has 6%. Meanwhile New England increased to 7.5% of all fencers and Northeast was created (1.5%).

So, the question becomes, I think, that as the fencing population shifts (percentage-wise), at what point do we need to re-distribute the sections.

Personally, I think its nuts that one division, comprising 3% of all fencers, gets a section to itself and never has to travel. It made sense in the past, it doesn't make sense now.

By my very crude (and possibly inaccurate as I don't know the comprehensive div-section mappings) I come up with NAS having 14% of all fencers, MAS has 18%, SES has 13%. I couldn't even try the other sections as my knowledge is too poor. There are 10 sections. I think each section should have roughly 10% of all fencers.

[KD5MDK]

I believe as much as nearly anyone in the flaws of some Sectional sizes. However, I don't think that proposing realigning the current shapes to make each Section equal in fencer population is going to work. Because every 4 years or so, you'd have to go along and do it all over again. Also, because the most important components of the USFA are Divisions, you'd need to be able to make your adjustments in Division sized chunks, and that would get excessively complicated fast.

I think that some Sections need to be reshaped (in particular, SES and RMS need to be broken down into somewhat more practically sized units), and the qualifying path changed, but the latter is going to happen anyway.

[trazom]

I agree that it is impractical, nay, impossible to have them be the same. But I do think its nuts to have one, geographically tiny, section be 3% when its surrounded by two huge sections. Make them -somewhat- similar.

I reran numbers (and borrowed from the oldsite.usfencing.org's div-section listing). Here are the sections by percentage (2005 membership numbers).

Metropolitan - 3.4%
Midwest - 4.5%
Pacific NW - 6.2%
Rocky Mountain - 6.6%
Great Lakes - 7.7%
Southwest - 10.5%
Southeast - 13.2%
Pacific Coast - 13.3%
Mid Atlantic - 14.5%
North Atlantic - 19.8%

Edit: Fixed shorthand mistake s/Gulf Coast/Southwest

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does not the metro division/section have large enough number to warrant them being their own section?

they have less than half as many members as the NE Division. they also have significantly fewer than New Jersey. so, why does Metro warrant their own section when NE and NJ don't? the anser is simple: politics.

-m

[KD5MDK]

I've never heard of the Gulf Coast Section. Do you by any chance possibly mean Southwest Section?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by trazom

I agree that it is impractical, nay, impossible to have them be the same. But I do think its nuts to have one, geographically tiny, section be 3% when its surrounded by two huge sections. Make them -somewhat- similar.

I reran numbers (and borrowed from the oldsite.usfencing.org's div-section listing). Here are the sections by percentage (2005 membership numbers).

Metropolitan - 3.4%
Midwest - 4.5%
Pacific NW - 6.2%
Rocky Mountain - 6.6%
Great Lakes - 7.7%
Gulf Coast - 10.5%
Southeast - 13.2%
Pacific Coast - 13.3%
Mid Atlantic - 14.5%
North Atlantic - 19.8%

So New England, New York and the Mid-Atlantic States account for 40.9% of the total membership...

wow.

-m

[seak]

...and that's not even counting (the vast majority of) Virginia which is in the Southeast Section

[hpfencing]

I say trash the sections and move everything into regionalization but.......