July 2006 BoD Agenda

[oiuyt]

Attached.

-B

[KD5MDK]

Thanks! Looking now.

[KD5MDK]

Ok, Items of interest:

1) EC Reports;
A) Ombudsman status is tabled until next teleconference, and then not mentioned again. I presume that the May 25 report is a second meeting, after the April 27 one. It would be nice to know where that position stands.
B) Nevada Division issues are news to me. I suppose a report on the investigation will be forthcoming to the board (i.e., X has been appointed, is investigating, expects to have a report at Y time, or something).
C) Stacey Johnson appointed Interim Chair of IPSC until confirmed by Board. Shouldn't there be a motion or something in the Agenda to confirm her as Chair? Or is that built into the structure somewhere?
D) Jr Pan American Champs are run by who? As a near local, it would be interesting to know where to go to for more information about that. Also, does it strike anyone as a little late to be scheduling Championships less than 4 months in advance?

2) Financial Details are always interesting, when available.

3) Decision Phase:
A) Mr. Baker's motion on Qualifiers - Strongly support
B) Mr. Streb's motion on Tournament Ages - It's not clear to me who would set the minimum ages for competitions under Mr. Streb's proposal. Certainly it appears that the Division could, but it leaves unclear to me whether a tournament could set its own minimum age higher than the Divison one, while retaining sanctioning. Also, I see a double bind where if you leave the decision on minimum ages up to the Division, they are often no more acquainted with the fencing ability of a given child than the National Office is, so determining whether they are in an appropriate event is no easier, while at the same time if you leave it up to the parents, coaches and tournament organizers who are the only real authorities on the appropriate level for a particular child, you're leaving the door open for massive disparities in how the rules are applied, and numerous unfortunate situations. I think a clear and consistant nationwide rule is appropriate for this issue.

C. Mr. D'Asaro's motion on National Points - In favor. The current tournament structure is particularly harsh on small events, namely Women's Sabre, and until the overall structure is improved, it should be fixed as much as possible in the meantime.
D. Mr. Baker's motion on Club affiliation - Generally in favor. It seems like a reasonable issue, and although the need seems to be rare, if real examples of it can be demonstrated I think it is an appropriate measure to provide for.

The index of Appendicies does not actually label them, so I may make some innaccuracies in commenting on missing reports.

Appendix A: President - Would be nice to see and consider for discussion.
Appendix B: Vice-President Cheris - ""
Appendix C: Vice-President Wright - Good to see someone got a report in. Would be nice to see an anticipated date for the marketing effort to come into place, but I suppose that goes in the relevant committee report. Likewise, would like to see what the Veterans issues are seen as, and the process, but that belongs in the appropriate committee report as well.
Appendixes D-H: Not sure which is which.

Appendix I: Tournaments - Naturally, the success of National Tournaments in terms of staffing and scheduling is their primary achievement, and I understand that the National Tournaments Task Force is supposed to provide suggestions on the future of National tournaments and how to handle their scope. Shouldn't their report or a space for it be located on the Agenda somewhere?

The National Tournaments Chart - I'm assuming where it says "Checked In" it means entries, and "Individuals" means actual people. However, that doesn't make too much sense to me, because for NAC C there were more individuals than there were checked-in. Anybody know?
The case of the Div II/III NACs is interesting: One shows a very small increase in numbers, and the other shows a substantial decrease. Any ideas what caused this change? Two thoughts: a) Strong, quality, frequent local events are decreasing the demand for Div II/III. b) The cost of travel has hit the lower levels especially hard. Locations might also play a factor, as the sites last year might have had more local fencers than the sites this year. One piece of information that would give some evidence is to know what the breakdown of entries was, i.e. if increased Cadet numbers masked a dropoff at NAC A in D2/3 which didn't happen at NAC E, or not.
NAC C was the other NAC to show a decrease, but not a large one (72 check-ins). Given the weather problems that I recall hearing about, the entire cause could be there. I suppose comparing pre-registrations to attendance would be the best way to determine that, and compare tournament yields. Also, Div I and Veterans are probably the most stable events, with relatively consistant participants, as opposed to the others. Thus, lower increase.
NAC D, JOs, NAC F - 11-12.5% increase here, roughly in line with Summer Nationals projections. How does this compare to total USFA membership increase Year over Year? Are more people attending National Tournaments proportionately, or fewer? Are we prepared to handle this level of increase?

Appendix J: FOC, by Bill Oliver - Very nice to see a comprehensive and detailed report. Lots of important information inside.

a) International referees - It's good to see organization improvements. Questions. i) Are there enough international referees in the USFA to appropriately meet our requirements without putting undue demand on individuals? ii) How is our development of new international referees going, and are we training them at a sufficient rate to match increased US international participation?

b) Referee Development - Good to see the seminars are being given all over the country, and referee development is increasing. It would be nice if there were instructors available between Florida and Texas, or Pennsylvania and Nebraska, but I suppose that's the way things go. A tougher and more up-to-date test is a good thing, and I hope the study guide reflects it. Good news about the increase in referees. Given the number of people who have taken the seminar but not the test, perhaps each Region or Section should have a Referee Development person whose job it is to work with prospective and developing referees to see that they can move through the system as their skills allow.
The decrease in the number of top level referees is a serious issue, and I hope that the FOC meeting produces a lot of results to address it.
I think that there is a bit of a gap between the entry level referee, the National level, and the top level, and that some sort of training program or steps for referees to make the transition to each level (in addition to "practice" and "have a mentor") would help a lot.

The section on referee morale emphasizes the problems facing National Tournaments and the need for some sort of fix. See Tournaments Committe report comments.

Incidentally, while working on this reply, I note the USFA website describes the FOC as:

Originally Posted by USFA Website

Responsible for development of domestic, international and wheelchair referees; assignment of referees at domestic and international events (where US athletes are competing); correct interpretation of rules; advisory to Youth Regional Competitions. Tasked with reviewing its current structure and making recommendations to the EC in Feb. 2006

Did that happen?

Finally, it would be nice to see the FIE rule changes and the FOC's advice on them as mentioned at the end of the report.

Appendix K-ZZZ - Would be nice to receive those reports when they come in.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

D. Mr. Baker's motion on Club affiliation - Generally in favor. It seems like a reasonable issue, and although the need seems to be rare, if real examples of it can be demonstrated I think it is an appropriate measure to provide for.

Just a quick note on this motion, since it's mine and it's new...

This motion was at the request of a coach from a club that earlier this season underwent a split. There were concerns that people were remaining officially attached to a club to which they did not belong. Including some incidents where such people expressed a belief that they were entitled to participate on the teams from said club at Nationals. So the trigger is from a real-world example.

It's also been an occasionally mentioned low-priority item for a while (Joe Schmoe from Nebraska decides to list himself as a member of the FC for gits and shiggles).

More a move to set up book-keeping mechanisms than anything hugely earth-shattering.

-B

[qatet]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

B) Mr. Streb's motion on Tournament Ages - It's not clear to me who would set the minimum ages for competitions under Mr. Streb's proposal. Certainly it appears that the Division could, but it leaves unclear to me whether a tournament could set its own minimum age higher than the Divison one, while retaining sanctioning. Also, I see a double bind where if you leave the decision on minimum ages up to the Division, they are often no more acquainted with the fencing ability of a given child than the National Office is, so determining whether they are in an appropriate event is no easier, while at the same time if you leave it up to the parents, coaches and tournament organizers who are the only real authorities on the appropriate level for a particular child, you're leaving the door open for massive disparities in how the rules are applied, and numerous unfortunate situations. I think a clear and consistant nationwide rule is appropriate for this issue.

Perhaps allowing youth who have earned a rating to fence up would be a soultion. Not _necessarily_ an indicator of ability, but certainly an indicator of some level of experience. In areas with fewer youth tournaments, they should still be able to go to a RYC.

[mlr2fence]

Looking at the growing numbers, esp for Summer Nationals, it might be time to consider the 80% cut line for other events. I think Y14, D 2/3 would be solid candidates for this. It could also be structured to 'kick in' only if there are more than "X" in the event. This would also help the ref situation.

If there is going to be 'tweaking' in the awarding of points then I think that this should be looked at across the board, esp for Youth events. I see no reason why, if for example, the 40% falls at 17, that points need to go all the way down to 32, just to fill out the tableau (which is ridiculous when there are only 40+ in the event). This also factors into the under 13 fencing in open events discussion where its been mentioned as an option to allow those younger who are on NRPS to fence opens. Making the NRPS list under this scenario doesn't really mean any certain profiency, just that your parents could afford to take you to the NAC and that you did better in the pools than a few other kids.

Is there a solid reason why we don't keep points list for D2/3? Its not just a National team thing since we keep them for youth. Take the 30 something U/E/D rated fencer--there is no event they could fence where they could have bragging rights as to the national picture by making a points list. There have been frequent comments lamenting the drop-out of post-college fencers. Lets give them something to shoot for, like everyone else has--maybe this will help the retention rate. Its not like this would add that much extra bookkeeping.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by mlr2fence

Is there a solid reason why we don't keep points list for D2/3? Its not just a National team thing since we keep them for youth. Take the 30 something U/E/D rated fencer--there is no event they could fence where they could have bragging rights as to the national picture by making a points list. There have been frequent comments lamenting the drop-out of post-college fencers. Lets give them something to shoot for, like everyone else has--maybe this will help the retention rate. Its not like this would add that much extra bookkeeping.

Well, the best reason I can think of not to keep points lists for div 2/3 would be the fact that if you make top 4 at one of those events, you are no longer eligible to fence in one for at least the next 4 years.

[mlr2fence]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Well, the best reason I can think of not to keep points lists for div 2/3 would be the fact that if you make top 4 at one of those events, you are no longer eligible to fence in one for at least the next 4 years.

I don't see that as being much different than 'aging out' from a bookkeeping viewpoint. One day your name is on the list, the next its vanished!

[edew]

I think the main thing is that it provides a disincentive to fence well. Make 5th all the time and you'll rack up points. If you want to see your name at the top of the Div II or Div III list, just take 5th all the time. That's a disincentive to want to win and there's nothing more stupid than a bunch of people in the round-of-8 doing their darnedest to lose the bouts. It's like fencers have to be prodded to get to the semi-finals.

An alternative suggestion is the program we implemented in the Bay Cup: you get to fence in the Div II (or Div III) if you (a) have the proper classification at the time you first compete in that event that season and (b) you have already competed in a Div II (or Div III) that season. So, if you bump up your classification, it won't hurt your eligibility to compete in a Div II or Div III event for the remainder of the season, including the Nationals.

This allows the Div II or Div III to be a possible A-rated competition, which some fencers might like to see (give out more classifications) and allows for points standings for the Div II/III events. It's not too hard to do the bookkeeping to determine these things, much like being over age of 10 and still be able to compete in the Y10 (because the fencer was 10 as of Jan 1).

[teacup]

Perhaps a better phrasing of the age minimum requirement be to use the FIE wording which is "a fencer must be 13 by Jan. 1 of the year of the competition".

"all fencers must be at least 13 years old on January 1 of
the competitive season in question;"

This wording is too confusing. Is it the membership season, the youth season or the cadet, jr season?

[KD5MDK]

Looking at the growing numbers, esp for Summer Nationals, it might be time to consider the 80% cut line for other events. I think Y14, D 2/3 would be solid candidates for this. It could also be structured to 'kick in' only if there are more than "X" in the event. This would also help the ref situation.

The 80% cut already applies for all events except Youth. There currently is no provision for mininum numbers before it applies, and I'm sure most of the Youth-14 events would hit that anyway. Also, since they aren't National Championships (the Youth Events) part of the justification for the cut isn't there.

How would Div II/III fencers with National D2/3 points be seeded at local events? Would having Div II points affect your seeding in Div III?
The purpose of the Youth points lists it seems to me is to provide a venue for young fencers to fence up into higher age categories after demonstrating certain skill levels, and to seed fencers at national events who are not old enough to fence in events which award ratings (and who don't deserve Senior ratings anyway). I'm not sure where Div II/III falls into this picture. One of the things having a points list would do is give an even bigger incentive to attend the D2/D3 NACs, when we're already considering the tournaments overloaded.

[qatet]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I'm not sure where Div II/III falls into this picture. One of the things having a points list would do is give an even bigger incentive to attend the D2/D3 NACs, when we're already considering the tournaments overloaded.

And yet, these are the NACs that are shriking or growing slowly, with the notable exception of Nationals.

[sleepyweasle]

quote/ "1. Motion (Mr. D’Asaro): Fencers should earn points up to the 32 whether they make the Direct Eliminations or not. Rational: This is not a quality of skill issue. It is an issue of numbers. The only weapon that is affected is Woman’s saber. NAC points are given to qualify for Nationals. Currently there are 42 women on the points standing. If they all go to Nationals, here is the breakdown: 60% advance 25; 60% advance 15; only 15 women would get points."/ end quote.

One thing that might be considered, again probably affecting only WS, is changing the rule for Div 1 NACs so that under a certain # of registrants (i.e. 64) 80% might be promoted to 2nd round pools. It is a huge obstacle to participation in Div 1 NACs to routinely find out only 50 or so people are fencing - meaning only 30 or so get promoted to 2nd rounds and 18 get to fence DEs. Unless a fencer is in the top 30 on the Senior points list - they have to wonder if it's really worth the airfare and hotel fees to fence 5-6 bouts. Most fencers go to NACs to fence as much as possible (winning & placing well is nice too!) but when money is tight, fencers aren't going to go to these NACs if they feel they have no chance of getting out of the first round.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by qatet

And yet, these are the NACs that are shriking or growing slowly, with the notable exception of Nationals.

Maybe if they shrink enough we can get them down to 3 day events and take an even bigger burden off.

[oiuyt]

One comment on the D'Asaro motion. The rationale is mixing a couple of different things incorrectly. The number of people on the points list is only relevant for D1 Nationals, not for NACs. At Nationals the format is pool, 80% to straight DE, which isn't the format he explicitly mentions.

If they all go to Nationals there are 42 people, 34 advance, 32 get points. Not to mention that there are the 8 qualifiers from IA and 4 from II (some of those slots might be the same people or already be counted as points holders). edit: actually it takes 43 people for points to 32, despite a complete L32 (and two bouts in the L64) points only go to the top 16 with 42 people.

WS is NOT the only weapon that would be affected. In Sacramento only ME and MF had complete L32 brackets.

Doesn't mean it isn't a good idea, but the rationale is slightly flawed. That said, I also took 33rd on touches scored once back when points WERE awarded down to 32nd and making the DE's wasn't required. Did seem a tad arbitrary waiting for the results to get posted, knowing that advancement wasn't possible, but that points might be.

Speaking to one of mlr2fence's points, especially at D1 Nationals the fill-out-the-bracket awarding of points does make it "interesting". If an event has 42 or fewer people (but more than 20, which always happens) then 16 people get points. 43 or more and 32 people get points. Last year's field sizes -- 55, 40, 42, 42, 39, 28. Add just a couple of people and you're barely affecting the field strength, but you double the number of points recipients. In MF and MS it would have taken a single extra person.

Mmmm, with WS having a field size of 28 people last year it does raise the question of whether or not awarding points to the top 32 is appropriate. Take top 4 of D2 the previous year, take a year off fencing, come fence one event losing every touch and one ends up with national points, which qualifies the fencer to the following year's D1, and this can perpetuate until and event is missed or finally grows beyond 32 fencers. Granted not a likely scenario.

-B

[Peach]

A good while back I predicted that the field size in Div I WS would drop when the new (now old) point-earning rules were put in place. I'm not saying I'm right and the reason the field size is smaller because there is even less likelihood of making points than there used to be, and correlation is not causation, but I do know a bunch of people who don't bother to compete any more because there is no realistic shot at getting points.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing, if what we want to do is produce a strong elite, and that might be why our WS is so strong. However, we've produced an elite for whom the Div I NACs and Summer Nationals are largely irrelevant and it might be good to feed the stew some more.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by Peach

A good while back I predicted that the field size in Div I WS would drop when the new (now old) point-earning rules were put in place. I'm not saying I'm right and the reason the field size is smaller because there is even less likelihood of making points than there used to be, and correlation is not causation, but I do know a bunch of people who don't bother to compete any more because there is no realistic shot at getting points.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing, if what we want to do is produce a strong elite, and that might be why our WS is so strong. However, we've produced an elite for whom the Div I NACs and Summer Nationals are largely irrelevant and it might be good to feed the stew some more.

How much further would things have to go before the US top 8 WS fencers could skip then entire domestic schedule and retain their top 8 ranking from WCs alone?

[keith]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

How much further would things have to go before the US top 8 WS fencers could skip then entire domestic schedule and retain their top 8 ranking from WCs alone?

Well of Mariel's (current #1) 14272 points only 695 come form the (single) NAC.

....'tis interesting when you look at the womens sabre points standing. Perhaps they need to give more points for NACs

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Just curious: would the Streb resolution about minimum age remove the "if they have points in Cadet, then Junior--they can fence Div 1" exception for 11-12 year olds?