Ok so I attended a meeting today as part of coaches college with Michael M. and Christine Simmons and he stated that
1) there was a group of people working on the new website and that it would be up in the next 30 days. Also it will include online membership (and if that works online tournament registration would be the next step)
2) They have moved the membership database over, and as part of the new database their is a field for numerical ranking, which is where they are going. Though the new format hasn't been determined yet
3) There will be between 40-44 strips at this year's NACs
4) For the Beijing olympics NBC will apparently televise any American Fencer in the finals in primetime, preliminary bouts with American will be shown on one of the NBC affiliates and Fencing is one of their hot sports.
I think that's most of the important/interesting stuff. Others who were there feel free to correct me
Also apparently some of the stuff on the website they've said different things all 3 sessions so take it with a grain of salt
__________________
What's the "real" world again? I don't think I can see it from my window
Location: the Salle(I no longer have a home address)
Posts: 1,360
D!!n you're fast girl! You were still sleepy when we were practicing an hour ago,
Quote:
Originally Posted by seak
Ok so I attended a meeting today as part of coaches college with Michael M. and Christine Simmons and he stated that
1) there was a group of people working on the new website and that it would be up in the next 30 days. Also it will include online membership (and if that works online tournament registration would be the next step)
Yeah, and that was what I was told last year at this same time. But some of his comments seemed to point in the direction of the USFA working more closely with people and organizations like Fencing.net and "Ask Fred". Which is promising as I see no reason for the USFA to try and re-invent the wheel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seak
2) They have moved the membership database over, and as part of the new database their is a field for numerical ranking, which is where they are going. Though the new format hasn't been determined yet
I'm sure we can adapt. But will being able to brag that you are #2347 have the same attraction as being a "B" or "C"? Of course "A's" have always been as interested in their point standing as their classifications. But how will you give point standings based on local USFA sanctioned tournaments? Can a person who only attends NAC's and never attends local division or section events have a higher standing based on their performance at the fewer events?? All of that is up in the air. At least superficially the proposed system sounds like what the Brits use.
I'm sure we can adapt. But will being able to brag that you are #2347 have the same attraction as being a "B" or "C"? Of course "A's" have always been as interested in their point standing as their classifications. But how will you give point standings based on local USFA sanctioned tournaments? Can a person who only attends NAC's and never attends local division or section events have a higher standing based on their performance at the fewer events?? All of that is up in the air. At least superficially the proposed system sounds like what the Brits use.
I suggest going through the Tournament Task Force proposals (thread). One of them discusses the beginnings of some ideas for numeric systems of several different designs. Pass your feedback along to the task force in the next week to get it into early stages of the discussion.
Top-100 could become the "new A", top-1000 the "new B", etc. Passing milestones would still be noteworthy in an all-ranked system.
For personal reasons I'd love to hear more details about what mentions of a numeric system were made at the meeting. Either here or via PM.
-B
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
Basically there is a field for it in the membership database. That is where the USFA is going. They haven't decided yet what the format is going to be. But basically you would have a certain number of points/would be 200th in the country or something like that
Darius expressed concerns that there not be a disincentive for highly ranked fencers to fence in lower level events (since if you lost you might be knocked down)
It was stated that that sort of situation would be taken into account and was not a desired outcome. That was pretty much it in terms of specifics
edit: and that who could fence in Div 1/ Div 2 etc would be determined by saying people above 100 fence in this (making up numbers) people below 300 in this etc.
also it was stated that things like veterans points would not be affected or changed and that the list would be split by weapon and possibly gender
__________________
What's the "real" world again? I don't think I can see it from my window
I'm sure we can adapt. But will being able to brag that you are #2347 have the same attraction as being a "B" or "C"?
Yeah. It's just a matter of time. ... Think of it the other way around: Imagine we had been working with numbers for many years and were moving to a letter-grade system. The question would be, "Will being able to brag that you've got a 'B' or 'C' have the same value as being ranked in the 2,000-3,000 bracket?" ... It's all a matter of generally accepted framing. The transition will be weird, but in a couple of years afterward everything will be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seak
Darius expressed concerns that there not be a disincentive for highly ranked fencers to fence in lower level events (since if you lost you might be knocked down)
??? That problem would take care of itself over time. No risk, no gain. And if any top fencer is so afraid to lose his top ranking that he's unwilling to compete, then he doesn't really deserve to keep that champion status anyway.
??? That problem would take care of itself over time. No risk, no gain. And if any top fencer is so afraid to lose his top ranking that he's unwilling to compete, then he doesn't really deserve to keep that champion status anyway.
Mmm, this is VERY dependent on how the system is structured and is a very reasonable issue to bring up during preliminary planning stages.
I could create structures that are mostly reasonable that would have an issue with weak local events as potential "gotchas" for elites -- to such an extent that they'd be wise to avoid all such events entirely -- that heavily favor high-powered national events to the meaningful exclusion of local results, that favor those who fence lots of competitions, even if the strength isn't really there, that favor those who live in areas with high concentrations of strong fencers to the extent that those who don't are effectively almost barred from top rankings, etc., etc.
Making sure that we have a system that accomplishes the disparate goals of the organization and its membership while being fair to all (or at least not patently unfair to any (or perhaps other than a small tail)) is decidedly non-trivial. Different parts of the country are VERY different. What is best for the top-100 fencers can be very different than what works best for the 15,000th ranked fencer.
Again, I suggest reading the TF proposal on the topic and dicussing the conversation stubs included. Both here on f.net and in comments to the TF. (yes, I probably WILL shut up about passing along comments after next week -- at least until the next round of comment-gathering by the TF).
-B
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
There is absolutely no reason to change to a numerical ranking system. Does anyone really think it would result in better events, better fencers, a higher quality national team, or anything positive at all? Please prove to me how a new system would create meaningful changes rather than confusion.
I haven't really thought this one through, but it might be kinda interesting to have a secret system for point calculations. The calculations are made by the national office, but the formula itself is proprietary and not made public to the athletes.
That's how credit scores are calculated. The formula is created by Fair Isaac and then modified from time to time. People can experiment to see what causes changes, but it's difficult to make real predictions outside of paying your bills on time is a good thing and lots of debt is bad...
Going to tournaments is good... winning tournaments is good.
But how good are they? That's the question
__________________ Quit touchin' me, ya freak
F.Net Rule #1: E. L. E. (everybody love everybody)
Basically there is a field for it in the membership database. That is where the USFA is going. They haven't decided yet what the format is going to be.
Well, how nice! They ask for comments ( the TTF proposals ), they extend the dealine for comments, but they've already decided that "this is where they're going". Great. So---the request for comments was pro forma, having no more purpose than to deceive the membership into thinking they were actually being consulted?
I'm betting the decisions have aready been made on the rest of the proposals as well.
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
Or, you know, they could be planning their information architecture so that they can take advantage of whatever decision is made, rather than being forced into a limited set of choices because of insufficiently flexible planning.
Well, Seak's remark ( made TWICE ) was: "That's where they're going". As in, are going. Not considering, not planning around just in case: "are going".
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
Well, how nice! They ask for comments ( the TTF proposals ), they extend the dealine for comments, but they've already decided that "this is where they're going". Great. So---the request for comments was pro forma, having no more purpose than to deceive the membership into thinking they were actually being consulted?
Your very negative conclusion isn't necessarily the only scenario. It is possible to have an overall direction in mind, a general plan, and still seek feedback and opinions on specific details or potential problem areas that might otherwise have been missed. ... There's nothing deceptive about that. Your assumption of deception presupposes the feedback was needed only to trigger a go/no-go decision toggle.
If, indeed, the collective had decided, "This is where (we)'re going," there's still a lot of room for considering, "How should we get there, and what have we missed along the way?"
Of all the people here, you would have been one of the last I would have expected to toss off such overreaching accusations of deception.
The committee hasn't come to any decisions about tournaments, and it sounds as if the USFA office is just trying to make sure they don't cut off any future possibilities. However, the only given about designing any data structure is that you won't include the one most essential field, no matter how much you plan.
__________________ I'm not anonymous. We just haven't been properly introduced.
Well, Seak's remark ( made TWICE ) was: "That's where they're going". As in, are going. Not considering, not planning around just in case: "are going".
And Seak is....who? A member of the BoD? Or someone who attended a meet and greet at Coaches College in which the USFA management talks for about a half an hour without really giving anyone a lot of "inside" information (I've been to five or six of 'em).
I'm in favor of the explanation of future flexiability, though I will admit that a number system in the next five years wouldn't surprise me. I actually -- in my comments to the tournament committee -- recommended it myself, though with some caveats.
One of the problems with a number system, as ouiyt says, is that fencing across the country IS so different. The current letter system's weakness is that it doesn't really pin down skill level as much as most of us would like, but that is also one of its big strengths: it is "vague" enough that it is difficult to point out just WHERE it goes wrong.
The first pass of a number system is likely to be full of missteps, simply because of the issues that ouiyt raises. If the USFA does go to a number ranking system in the next few years, I would suspect that the first attempt made will be modified several times. Simply leaving a blank space in the data base for future coding makes some sense.
I hope you are right, but it is experience which has made me a pessimist.
Assuming that Seak did not overstate what was said at this meeting, the language indicates that a decision has already been made to go to a point system of some sort. WHAT sort eventually materializes is immaterial to those of us who don't want ANY point system...and our "input" on that part of the TTF proposal at least is apparently irrelevant. This several days before the deadline for comments they solicited.
Really, how am I supposed to interpret this any differently than I have?
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
I haven't really thought this one through, but it might be kinda interesting to have a secret system for point calculations. The calculations are made by the national office, but the formula itself is proprietary and not made public to the athletes.
That's how credit scores are calculated. The formula is created by Fair Isaac and then modified from time to time. People can experiment to see what causes changes, but it's difficult to make real predictions outside of paying your bills on time is a good thing and lots of debt is bad...
Going to tournaments is good... winning tournaments is good.
But how good are they? That's the question
.... And thus taking all power away from the populus, overloading the already crippled national office, and making it so that a flawed system that often makes mistake about ratings now (people not getting ratings when they earned them, people getting incorrect ratings) have NO OVERSIGHT AT ALL???
If your rating dips 10 or 20 instead of going up 10 or 20, you will have no way of knowing it's wrong. None. And even if you have a reasonable belief that the rating is wrong, you can call the national office, but they'll be so bogged down by OTHER people calling the office (Little Bobby's mother, who just can't IMAGINE that her son's ranking was hurt by that U tournament he fenced in and took second to last place in--- why, he came in over an ENTIRE PERSON....)......... No one will believe you if you actually do have a ranking problem.
*cough*
Taking power away from the people just doesn't sound like you....
__________________
Visit my non-fencing blog, mostly about food, at Coset The Table!
.... And thus taking all power away from the populus, overloading the already crippled national office, and making it so that a flawed system that often makes mistake about ratings now (people not getting ratings when they earned them, people getting incorrect ratings) have NO OVERSIGHT AT ALL???
Taking power away from the people just doesn't sound like you....
You're right, this doesn't sound like me, however, searching previously undiscussed alternatives (even unpopular ones) to a pending issue is exactly like me...
I'm mostly amused that hundreds of thousands of life-affecting financial decisions are being made every day in the US based on a top-secret proprietary formula? And very few people are complaining.
They must be doing something right.
And when things are going right... copy (steal) and implement.
That said table-tennis has a numerical ranking system... I don't know how it works, but a few years ago I was chatting with a few guys who were top regional players. They seemed to have a pretty good handle on the levels and there was a score (something around 1500) that they equated with an "A" level competitor.
__________________ Quit touchin' me, ya freak
F.Net Rule #1: E. L. E. (everybody love everybody)
Linear Mode
