Div II/III quals and the Sep 2006 BoD meeting

[mfp]

The "2006 - 2007 Athlete Handbook Update" currently on the USFA web site implies that this past September the BoD changed the way qualifiers are calculated for combined Div II/III qualifer events this season. It seems to state that no longer can you use the algorithm oiuyt and others have described to figure out the Div III qualifiers. Is that indeed the case? However the athlete's handbook includes the text that the "Changes proposed for Board consideration in mid September" but not that they were adopted (or even considered) and I don't see the Sep 2006 minutes on the web site.

What's the straight scoop?

[oiuyt]

The minutes have not been posted because they are not yet official. Minutes become official (and subsequently posted) once they've been approved at the following BoD meeting. There hasn't been a BoD meeting since the one in September. The next is currently scheduled for April 28-29, which, of course, is considerably too late for much of the information about qualifiers to be of much use for planning for this season.

Automatic qualifier paths for D2 and D3 were removed. This was aimed at removing paths such as being a U16 qualifier giving one D2/3 status, but also had the effect (unclear whether this was intentional, as I don't recall it being explicitly noted) of removing the path from IA->2 and 2->3. The 2->3 trickledown is what yielded the algorithms posted for previous years. Without that, the qualification for D3 has become close to twice as hard in the vast majority of divisions. The previously-posted algorithms are no longer valid without D2->D3 trickledown.

My notes about the meeting, as posted last September.

Reviewing my notes I see that this motion had a split vote 6-6, with a tie-breaking vote cast by the President, following the "in favor" recommendation of the EC. Note that I was a dissenting vote (and now that I see more of the implications, would have argued even more strenuously against passage).

7. Motion (Mr. Herman): That beginning with Summer Nationals in 2007, all fencers must qualify in their divisions to fence in Division II and Division III competitions; no automatic qualification paths will exist for Division II or Division II

The first clause and the second clause don't actually work well together, as the D2->D3 trickledown was not a qualification path outside of the division. Removing it as a path did not affect the stated goal in the first clause.

My interpretation of this is that the removal of D2->D3 was unintended, but unfortunately is a result of the second clause, as it's an automatic qualification path. The recently-posted, updated, Athlete's Handbook clearly removes the trickledown method.

-B

[bigdawg2121]

So does this mean that we will now have to run separate Div2 and Div3 events (as opposed to a mixed Div2 only with qualifications given out that way)? If so I'm thinking someone might want to notify my division board.

[oiuyt]

So does this mean that we will now have to run separate Div2 and Div3 events (as opposed to a mixed Div2 only with qualifications given out that way)? If so I'm thinking someone might want to notify my division board.

No, the event can still be run mixed. And doesn't change the number of qualifiers vs. running separately.

If mixed, then the top 25% (of the field) are D2-qualified and the top 25% (of D, E, and U fencers) skipping over any C-classified finishers are D3 qualified. Obviously any D/E/U fencers who get a D2 slot also now chew up a D3 slot, where before they were skipped, adding to the D3 pool.

If separate events are held the top 25% of the D2 event get D2 qualification and the top 25% of the D3 event get D3 qualification. Placing in the top 25% of the D2 event and not doing so in the D3 event means one may fence D2 in Miami, but not D3.

NJ Div remains the only place of which I am aware running separate D2 and D3 qualifiers.

-B

[mfp]

A warning to Fencing Time users ...

Be aware that Fencing Time (at least the version I have) uses the previous years' algorithm for determining Div III qualifiers in combined Div II/III qual events so it will generate an incorrect list of Div III quals for this season's Summer Nationals.

[dberke]

A warning to Fencing Time users ...

Be aware that Fencing Time (at least the version I have) uses the previous years' algorithm for determining Div III qualifiers in combined Div II/III qual events so it will generate an incorrect list of Div III quals for this season's Summer Nationals.

I will be releasing a patch for Fencing Time this week that will update the qualifier rules for the new season. I was waiting to get verification that the Div II to Div III trickledown was indeed gone... it sounds like it is so I can get the release published.

Dan

[RITFencing]

What was the reason given for this proposal? Cutting down on numbers at Summer Nationals?

[oiuyt]

What was the reason given for this proposal? Cutting down on numbers at Summer Nationals?

Full text of the motion, including rationale:

7. Motion (Mr. Herman): That beginning with Summer Nationals in 2007, all fencers must qualify in their divisions to fence in Division II and Division III competitions; no automatic qualification paths will exist for Division II or Division III.

Rationale: The various routes to compete in Division II and III have multiplied over the years. Automatic qualification tends to diminish the level of competition at qualifiers, and to decrease the overall numbers of those who compete. In addition, when the automatic qualifiers do not compete, the skill level of those who do qualify tends to be lower, decreasing the skill level required to qualify for National Championships, while simultaneously increasing the size of the Summer National events.

When automatic qualifiers do not participate in the divisional qualifiers, this in turn decreases the financial return for these tournaments.

By requiring that all fencers qualify locally, the division is empowered, making it a focal point on the qualification path. The quality of the divisional tournaments will increase, as will the number of competitors at local competitions. This in turn will provide increased opportunities for the development of novice fencers, referees, and competition administrators—and will result in a larger financial return to the division. By requiring that all fencers must qualify, division tournaments will be stronger, helping to build fencing at the local levels.

Motion was aimed at getting people to compete locally. Removing the D2->D3 trickledown doesn't add encouragement in that direction.

-B

[RITFencing]

Motion was aimed at getting people to compete locally. Removing the D2->D3 trickledown doesn't add encouragement in that direction.

-B

I've got to agree with you there, although I don't think anyone can deny that smaller div 2 and 3 events at nationals will alleviate some of the bloating.

As to whether it's a good idea overall... I dunno. I'd have to probably go with no; the trickledown idea really made a lot of sense to me.

[oiuyt]

Oh, I'm not saying that it won't have other benefits. I just don't think those benefits are worth the cost.

In most divisions there's now no difference between qualifying for D2 and D3. That removes D3 as a stepping stone. Some of the largest divisions with significant numbers of C's participating will have a FEW people qualify for D3 without also getting D2, and, of course, the field in Miami will be somewhat different with the C's removed.

-B

[eac]

I am a bit confused about the USFA rationale in various places. I have heard that NACs lose money, while Summer Nationals make it all back. Why is Summer Nationals profitable while NACs aren't? Further, why does the USFA not profit when 50 more scrubs register for Div 3, when they pay the full entry fee and only fence for the pools or maybe a DE? More generally, why is the USFA so intent on shrinking events? Maybe for Div I, very large NACs don't serve the purpose of preparing the international people, but I don't see why there's a problem with Div 2/3.

[RITFencing]

I think that you get a bit more bang for your buck at nationals when dealing with one time costs (plane tickets have got to be a big one here) than you do for a NAC. You get ~3 times as much effect for each of the non scaling expenses.

[KD5MDK]

That and to reinforce the importance of Divisionals. If people thought they had a good chance at Div I-A at Sectionals, they might skip Divisonals even if they wanted to fence D2/3. This forces them to attend Divisonals and hopefully increase the level of competition.

Edit: Darn my failure to hit refresh!

[edew]

If the non-trickledown system is in place, it sounds like the best deal is to run a Div III qualifier and then a Div II qualifier. It's possible that someone can qualify to Div III, earn a C and fence and qualify for Div II as well. It's not much, but that's about it. If the Div II was held before the Div III, a Div III eligible fencer might do "too well" and qualify for Div II and not be eligible for Div III afterwards and thus cannot help contribute to the number of entries. Sounds like a bad idea in the sense that doesn't help encourage local competition.

[KD5MDK]

I am a bit confused about the USFA rationale in various places. I have heard that NACs lose money, while Summer Nationals make it all back. Why is Summer Nationals profitable while NACs aren't? Further, why does the USFA not profit when 50 more scrubs register for Div 3, when they pay the full entry fee and only fence for the pools or maybe a DE? More generally, why is the USFA so intent on shrinking events? Maybe for Div I, very large NACs don't serve the purpose of preparing the international people, but I don't see why there's a problem with Div 2/3.

Because events that have 200+ people in them take a ton of strips, referees and time, and we're short of all of the above at Nationals.
1) Strips - We have to keep buying them. Can't keep expanding forever, the management gets more complex, and the Convention Centers get bigger and more expensive.
2) Referees - Very few if any are turned away from Summer Nationals. Anyone who wants to work can, and so there's not a whole lot of extra people available to hire.
3) There's X number of days, and X number of (reasonable) hours each day fencing can occur. Bigger events demand more time, and put a squeeze on the resources available to other events. Consider how some Men's Epee events more or less occupy the entire room for several hours all by themselves. (Well, maybe not yet at SN, where it would take 420 fencers, but it could get there.)

[oiuyt]

If the non-trickledown system is in place, it sounds like the best deal is to run a Div III qualifier and then a Div II qualifier. It's possible that someone can qualify to Div III, earn a C and fence and qualify for Div II as well. It's not much, but that's about it. If the Div II was held before the Div III, a Div III eligible fencer might do "too well" and qualify for Div II and not be eligible for Div III afterwards and thus cannot help contribute to the number of entries. Sounds like a bad idea in the sense that doesn't help encourage local competition.

Doing this doesn't change the total number of qualifying slots.

If you take a pool of entrants of various classifications and enter them all into a combined D2/D3 event and then assign qualification slots as usual you get X total slots (with X2 == D2 slots being larger or equal to X3 == D3 slots and X2+X3 == X).

If you run a D3 event with all of the D and under entrants from the pool and then a D2 event with all of the entrants from the pool you still end up with X3 + X2 == X. They might be different people, and you're extremely likely to have some slots split so that more people have at least one slot (either a D2 or a D3 slot), but the total number has not changed.

Run a D2 event with everyone and then a D3 event with all D and under entrants and the same thing happens.

Run two separate events and have some D and under people only enter the D3 event and you lose slots.

In theory one can lose a quarter slot (which can round off to a full slot) by running the D3 event far enough in advance of a separate D2 event such that the classification change has been submitted to and recorded by the National Office, but the same can be said for having ANY tournament in the time leading up to the qualifier events. Holding D2/3 qualifiers in January will result in more eligible fencers than holding them in April.

Actual numbers to make my assertions above more concrete:

Let's say we have 30 people (interested in qualifying to nationals) in the local division in whatever weapon we choose to examine. 6 of them have a C classification.

We hold a combined D2/3 qualifier involving everyone. The top 30 * 25% == 7.5 (rounded to 8) fencers qualify to D2. Let's assume that our C's do well and all place in the top third of the event. We have 24 * 25% == 6 D3 qualifiers. We skip all of the C's, and any D's or below placing in the top 12 gets D3 qualification. We have a total of 14 qualifying slots, spread among 12 fencers.

Same thing, but with no C fencers. The top 30 * 25% == 7.5 (rounded to 8) fencers qualify to D2. We have no C fencers, so the top 30 * 25% qualify to D3. The top 8 fencers have earned both D2 and D3 qualification. We have 16 slots going to 8 people.

Okay, let's hold separate events. We hold a D2 event with 30 entries. We have 8 qualifying slots (D2) going to the top 8 finishers. Case A we had 6 C's in the event. We now hold a D3 event with 24 entries. We get 6 people qualified to D3. It's likely, although certainly not guaranteed, that the 2 non-C's with D2 qualification have placed in the top 6 and also grabbed D3 slots. We have 14 total slots spread among 12-14 different fencers.

Case B we have 0 C's. After holding the D2 we hold a 30-person D3 event. The top 8 people get D3 slots. It's unlikely, but possible, that the top 8 remained constant. Total we have 16 slots spread among 8-16 fencers.

No new slots are created by splitting the events. The slots are likely to be somewhat more spread out, especially if the number of C's in the field is relatively low. Of course if the slots are thus spread it occurs by having a number of people qualified to fence D2 and eligible, but not qualified to fence D3, which really doesn't make much sense.

With separate events we're also extremely likely to have some people skip one or the other, despite being eligible for both. There will be people who qualify for D2 and skip the D3 qualifier (either because they no longer care about it, or because they mistakenly believe that they have now qualified for both, as in the past). There will likely be people who only fence the D3 event because they don't feel ready for the "high-powered" D2 qualifier. Losing anyone to either of these reasons lowers the number of entrants and therefore the number of qualifiers.

Add to that the fact that splitting doubles the number of events and the administrative load on the managers, venues, referees and other tournament personnel, fencers, available calendar dates, etc. It's foolish to split these events. The one advantage to splitting that I can see is if the combined event is too large to manage, splitting will reduce the number of fencers competing on any given day. Of course this is disadvantageous to the local division and athletes, but in theory it could be seen as a very slight positive. I suppose an additional benefit could be seen in that everyone fences twice as much, but the same could be caused by holding another tournament, selecting a format with twice as much fencing (multiple rounds of pools and DE with repechage), or any of a number of other methods which are extremely likely to be considered not worthwhile.

-B

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Threaddrift ahead:

2) Referees - Very few if any are turned away from Summer Nationals. Anyone who wants to work can, and so there's not a whole lot of extra people available to hire.

So, what about non-USA refs? Would they be considered for work, if they have national (i.e. lower than FIE) ref ratings? Would that cause green card issues?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Jay Kominek]

I'm curious; how are the divisions expected to become aware of this change? Was an announcement sent out to division officers about it? Were they informed that there was a new athlete's handbook available that they'd need to read cover to cover to find any relevant changes? Or are they all supposed to be reading fencing.net?

[mfp]

With separate events we're also extremely likely to have some people skip one or the other, despite being eligible for both. There will be people who qualify for D2 and skip the D3 qualifier (either because they no longer care about it, or because they mistakenly believe that they have now qualified for both, as in the past).

Running separate events under the new rules, it's also possible for a D and lower fencer to fence in both of the qualifying events and qualify for Div II but not Div III.

[oiuyt]

Running separate events under the new rules, it's also possible for a D and lower fencer to fence in both of the qualifying events and qualify for Div II but not Div III.

Indeed, in divisions with few (relatively) C's competing, it's quite likely.

Also mentioned in my previous note on the topic. :)

-B