USACFC Final Format

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Jon has just emailed out the final format----- There was no voting. Leave a bad taste in anyone else's mouth? {Not that Smith wouldn't have voted for this, just..... yeah.}

Originally Posted by Jon Moss

USACFC 2007 Championship Format and Schedule

Day 1 – Saturday 31 March:

A. First round of team pools – pools of 8, 9 or 10 teams round robin in an A, B, C format (the strongest fencer must be in the A position, second strongest in B and third strongest in C)
a. Promote a total of 24 squads from these pools. The promotion will be based upon victories, then indicators and then touches scored by the squad in the pool. Promotion will be the top 24 squads from the field based initially on percent wins; then indicators and finally touches scored as tie breakers. Places beyond 24th will be awarded points as indicated in the points chart.
b. Individual qualifiers will also come from these pools. The top 3 “A” fencers, top 2 “B” fencers and top “C” fencer from each pool will be promoted to the individual championship rounds.
c. Incomplete squads of 2 fencers are eligible for promotion: those with 1 fencer are not.
B. First round of DEs (the round of 24)
a. The 24 qualifying squads in each weapon will be ranked (1- 24) based on percentage of victories, indicators and then touches scored. The competition will be fenced in the best of 9 format (normal college team format stopping when one team reaches 5 victories).
b. All 24 squads will be placed in a Direct Elimination table of 32. There will be no reseeds.
c. The first 8 squads in each weapon will receive a bye in the first round.
d. Squads 9 – 24 will fence a direct elimination round. The losing squads will be eliminated from the competition: the winning squads will advance to the second day’s competition.
C. Individual competitions (Following the 9 – 24 squad DE)
a. The individual qualifiers will compete in pools until a final pool of 6 is determined.
b. If there are 18 qualifiers, then 3 pools of 6 will be fenced (possibly on 4 strips). The top 10 fencers out of these pools will qualify to the semifinal pool and the top 6 of the semifinal will qualify to the final on day 2. The seeding of the pools will be as follows:

Pool 1 Pool 2 Pool 3
A1-1 A1-2 A1-3
A2-3 A2-3 A2-1
A3-2 A3-1 A3-2
B1-2 B1-3 B1-1
B2-3 B2-1 B2-2
C1-1 C1-2 C1-3



c. If there are 24 qualifiers, then 4 pools of 6 will be fenced (possibly on 6 strips). The top 12 fencers out of these pools from the field will qualify to the semifinal pools. The semifinal pools will be fenced on Day 1 and will qualify the top 6 from the field to the final to be held Day 2. The seeding of the pools will be as follows:

Pool 1 Pool 2 Pool 3 Pool 4
A1-1 A1-2 A1-3 A1-4
A2-2 A2-3 A2-4 A2-1
A3-3 A3-4 A3-1 A3-2
B1-4 B1-1 B1-2 B1-3
B2-2 B2-3 B2-4 B2-1
C1-1 C1-2 C1-3 C1-4

Day 2 – Sunday 1 April:

A. Round of 16 for squads
a. The tableau of 16 will be fenced in the best of 9 team format stopping at 5 victories for one squad.
b. All 16 places will be fenced: no squad will be eliminated (1 v 16, 2 v 15, 3 v 14, 4 v 13, 5 v 12, 6 v 11, 7 v 10, 8 v 9)
c. The winning squads in the first round will be placed in the top eight positions; the losing 8 squads are placed in positions 9-16.
d. Round 2: The top 8 will continue in the table (1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5): and positions 9-16 will as well (9 v 16, 10 v 15, 11 v 14, 12 v 13)
e. Round 3: The winners of the top 8 will be placed in the top 4 (1 v 4, 2 v 3): the losers of the top 8 will be in positions 5 through 8 (5 v 8, 6 v 7). The winners of 9 through 16 will be places in positions 9 through 12 (9 v 12, 10 v 11): the loser in positions 13 through 16 (13 v 16, 14 v 15).
f. Round 4: The winners of the top 4 will be placed in the top 2 (1 v 2): the losers (3 v 4). The winners of 5 through 8 will be 5 v 6: the losers 7 v 8. The winners of 9 through 12 will be 9 v 10: the losers 11 v 12. The winners of 13 through 16 will be 13 v 14: the losers 15 v 16.
B. Individual finals
a. At the completion of the squad event for each gender, the individual final for that gender will be run. (The men’s tableau and the women’s individual will be run concurrently.

[reawl]

There was no voting. Leave a bad taste in anyone else's mouth?

It kind of tastes like foot. It would be nice if they'd just go ahead and re-write the constitution to reflect how the organization is actually run instead of perpetuating the illusion.

Also, am I reading this correctly that squads 25+ have pretty much no involvement on Day 2 aside from potentially having a fencer in the individual finals? That seems like it would suck a lot if you chartered a bus or flew where you can't get home any sooner.

On the commendable side, it seems like a fine format for teams 1-24.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by reawl

Also, am I reading this correctly that squads 25+ have pretty much no involvement on Day 2 aside from potentially having a fencer in the individual finals? That seems like it would suck a lot if you chartered a bus or flew where you can't get home any sooner.

On the commendable side, it seems like a fine format for teams 1-24.

I agree. Pretty weak. I think my squad can make it into the 24, but I know we'll have people who don't make it.

One thing I liked about the USACFCs last year was the lack of pressure in any given bout. Your performance mattered in a grand way, because it would affect your overall results, but there was no immediate consequence of a loss or a win. But I guess the time for debate has come and gone.

[keropie]

As a disinterested outsider, I'm also a bit leary of 'the best fencer must be in the A position' kind of thing. Does that mean the fencer with the best record? If so, by percentage, by percentage with a certain minimum of bouts, highest rated, what? That should probably be cleared up somehow.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by keropie

As a disinterested outsider, I'm also a bit leary of 'the best fencer must be in the A position' kind of thing. Does that mean the fencer with the best record? If so, by percentage, by percentage with a certain minimum of bouts, highest rated, what? That should probably be cleared up somehow.

I think it may be more of a fingershaking after last year. There was one situation I can think of in which the clearly superior fencer was put in the B slot and proceeded to eat all the other B fencers' lunches.

But you're right, they should have some way of defining best.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

I think it may be more of a fingershaking after last year. There was one situation I can think of in which the clearly superior fencer was put in the B slot and proceeded to eat all the other B fencers' lunches.

But you're right, they should have some way of defining best.

What school was that? I'm tryin to remember and I can't.

I like the format, I just wish there was some way to vote on it. Plus, I agree it does kind of suck for those who don't make top 24.

On the topic of not having rpessure for bouts, I disagree. I would rather have high pressure bouts. It's more fun, and leads to a more exciting event. Plus, better competitors come out when the pressure is on.

[Inigo_Montoya]

Originally Posted by keropie

Does that mean the fencer with the best record?

The fencing order is supposed to be determined by season record win percentage.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

If you strictly define "best fencer", it's going to often times get you the WRONG best fencer. Also there's the problem of in a club team, you don't have careful record of who did what.

But let's say you do have a good record of what's gone on, and let's take the Smith Epee Squad:

DG has the most epee experience, the best form, and the best tactical epee mind. Unfortunatly she doesn't have knees. We hope she'll be able to fence at Nationals, but we don't know yet.

CP only started this year, but she does pretty well, is all in one piece, has only ever done epee, and doesn't seem to get sick.

And then there's me: I've fenced epee with Mono and the Flu (two separate occations). I'm switching over from sabre, and so results are spotty, I win against people I should lose to, and lose to people I should win against. If I'm too tired, I stop tactically working as an epee fencer and revert to sabre tactics, which don't work. I move appropriately most of the time, but may or may not connect this to bladework.


Who's A strip? If it's by number of victories alone, it's CP---- but she's the only person who (looking at the bigger picture) shouldn't be A strip. Between DG and I, it's mostly based on how her knees are doing.

And there are squads everywhere with similar stories. Sometimes it's obvious who's A,B,and C. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's only really obvious once you've switched two people (last year in sabre, two of us had always been A and B because I'd had more competitive experience. We were switched for one competition, where I was blowing people apart, and she crashed and burned--- not because of skill, but because of experience. I used the pressure, she cracked under the pressure.)

It's usually not a problem. If one person is slightly better, it doesn't really matter who's A and who's B. The problem is when one person is clearly and obviously better and is put in B. Which is almost always a conscious decision.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Inigo_Montoya

The fencing order is supposed to be determined by season record win percentage.

...... Where do you see that? That may be stated in the bylaws of a conference your school is a part of, or it might be a team policy, but I've never heard of it before....





It perhaps should be noted that in the original, in the statement "(the strongest fencer must be in the A position, second strongest in B and third strongest in C)", the "must" is in red. There are no other such formating stresses.

[Inigo_Montoya]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

...... Where do you see that?

I'm not sure if it's written anywhere. I was thinking it was written somewhere, but it may not be. In the past, this is what Bruce has told me in interpreting placement of the A, B, and C fencer. This has however been more of a guideline based on the honors system.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Inigo_Montoya

I'm not sure if it's written anywhere. I was thinking it was written somewhere, but it may not be. In the past, this is what Bruce has told me in interpreting placement of the A, B, and C fencer. This has however been more of a guideline based on the honors system.

It is, in fact, a pretty good guideline. It would be a HORRIBLE written rule. With my team, what we use is probably more along the lines of "who do we imagine will have the highest win percentage for this tournament" --- and considering how many injuries we tend do have, and how drastically different some people's win percentages are.....


Win percentage is great when you fence mostly dual meets and one or two IFA style meets. If a team were to mostly fence IFAs, or have one or two fencers who had only fenced IFAs, if the team were to properly seed their squads based on skills, it's very possible that they would have very similar win percentages, or that the B fencer might do much better than the A fencer. If you have three very similar fencers, the C and B fencers will do much better than the A fencer, even if the A fence really is the A fencer.

In that circumstance, win percentage would possibly seed things completely incorrectly.

[Inigo_Montoya]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

It is, in fact, a pretty good guideline. It would be a HORRIBLE written rule.

I completely agree with you on this! For some situations and teams, this works great. But, some situations like you mentioned, are good examples where the best win percentage throughout the season does not translate into the best showing at the championships (especially if some fencers have dramatically improved since the beginning of the year). Thats why schools should pick their A, B, and C fencers based on who would do best against the A fencers. (their strongest fencer should be the A).

[RevJonathan]

Yeah, this is a little ridiculous. We already dropped out from the move from Texas to Indiana, I'm glad I don't have to explain this to my team!

[RevJonathan]

How do you enforce this? Would my team be penalized just because we our A in a B slot?

[keropie]

I would expect that if you had a real way to determine who 'the best' person is, then you could just put people in their correct spot. Meaning that the tournament organizer(s) could put each team's fencers in A, B, or C slot. Of course, if it's just straight win percentage, then the fencer who's 2-0 on the season is tough to beat, and the guy who's 46-2 isn't going to be the A.

Which is why there needs to be a real definition of 'best' .

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by keropie

I would expect that if you had a real way to determine who 'the best' person is, then you could just put people in their correct spot. Meaning that the tournament organizer(s) could put each team's fencers in A, B, or C slot. Of course, if it's just straight win percentage, then the fencer who's 2-0 on the season is tough to beat, and the guy who's 46-2 isn't going to be the A.

Which is why there needs to be a real definition of 'best' .

*rolls eyes*

And if this were NCAA fencing, where all the bouts that count are documented, this might even be possible. For teams with schedules with most of the competition in well organized conferences with good organization, it's probably still possible. But not every school will be like that.............

: P

[clonardo]

So, all weapons and genders will be running at the same time, yes?

[SabreFerret]

I also have to wonder if the teams fenced to come up with the season win record is taken into account if it's done by win record? Say if one fencer has a perfect record against only club teams, while another fencer has a 75% record against half club teams and half varsity teams, but the fencer with the 75% record also won all of their bouts against club teams, how do you figure who is the "better fencer"?

Robert, Brian, don't freak out, it doesn't matter to me, I have the strip I want::grin::, but it is something to think about.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

Jon has just emailed out the final format----- There was no voting. Leave a bad taste in anyone else's mouth? {Not that Smith wouldn't have voted for this, just..... yeah.}

If it makes you feel any better, the format additionally wasn't decided upon following the procedures outlined in the constitution (either constitution, for that matter, the one that was ratified and should currently be in effect OR the one posted on the USACFC website).

For that matter, I didn't get this email -- despite being VP of the association. Last weekend I was informed of multiple conversations taking place involving several different alternatives. Implication at that time was that conversations were still on-going, and my strong position was that the discussion needed to become considerably more public and open.

-B

[noodle]

Originally Posted by RevJonathan

Yeah, this is a little ridiculous. We already dropped out from the move from Texas to Indiana, I'm glad I don't have to explain this to my team!

as an aside, the move to indiana is a separate issue and was a drastic emergency situation.