Look at attached comparison of percentage qualifying at
USFA sectionals. Is this a level playing field?
I'm having problems posting, otherwise I would have included
more in my initial post. As it is I'm editting in my "reply"
as even that doesn't work. Here's hoping this works.....
Under the new rule for sectional qualifiers, the 25% cut off only
kicks in for events over 32; under 32, there's a minimum of 8
qualifiers and a much easier qualification path. Btw, this default
minimum undermines the ability of qualifiers to select elite fencers.
In each of the 3 largest sections, 27-29% of the fencers who
competed in their sectional events qualified, while in the other
sections 60-88% of the fencers that competed qualified. Clearly,
the odds are stacked against fencers in large sections.
In nearly three dozen qualifying events, 100% will qualify this
year. Fencers qualify just by showing up, even unrated fencers.
In larger sections, fencers with A and B ratings can fail to make
the 25% cut off.
How does statistically penalizing good fencers in the largest
sections improve US fencing in general, or the Summer Nationals
in particular?
What was wrong with the old 30% rule? Do the numbers; restoring
the 30% rule only adds about 12 more fencers from each of these
sections. That's not many.
Waiting until next year to revisit the rules and attempt to level
the playing field is too little, too late. Let them fence this year.
The USFA should restore the 30% rule immediately to help level
the playing field.
Isn't that the goal, making competitions fair . . . for everyone?
Maybe I am missing your point, but it is not supposed to be a level playing field. Qualifiers is for the elite of the section to qualify to fence at Summer Nationals. Sections that have sparse population but high attendance for their qualifying event than more populous sections or sections with large numbers but poor attendance (often due to stupid large geographic regions covered by antiquated and illogical sectional boundaries, but that is another argument) will have.
Example being, if you section has 3000 fencers but only 50 show up for mens epee you will have a very low percentage qualifying. If you have a small section, say 500 but you have a 100 people show up for mens epee, you will have a very large percentage qualify.
I think you should be a bit more clear in your post so that us "mad at numbers" types don't have to crunch all of your data to hopefully understand your point...
Welcome to the forums by the way!
Just another lost soul saved by the (hit) First Church of EPEE!
* It's not a new qualifying system. The 30%->25% (accompanied by a change in the minimum from 10->8, and changes in the division-level qualifiers) happened a couple of years ago.
* The primary effect is casued by the minimums, not by the qualifying percentage.
* Be happy that you're in a section where the proportionate qualification is envoked -- it means you get a larger, more worthwhile qualifying competition.
CVille- That's not the percentage he's examining. He's looking at the percentage of people entered in the Sectional Championships that qualify for the equivalent event at Nationals.
-B
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
It is kind of depressing when I see the metro division had 5 people in its IA qualifier (everyone qualified). Whereas I have to drive 4 hours today to get to Penn State and fence in a large (30+) event and try to make top 8 to qualify.
* The 25% system is only a couple of years old; that's relatively new.
* The effect of the minimums, who are walk-ons, is to destroy the validity of determining "qualifiers" for a championship.
* Holding a mini-NAC as a sectional qualifier is wonderful experience for fencers, but that doesn't negate the fact that those who don't qualify from tough sections are often better than walk-ons from other sections.
Why are fencers in some sections, practically speaking, entitled to qualify and others not?
It keeps the events small enough that they don't end at midnight, without unfairly disadvantaging fencers from smaller sections.
Sure smaller events run quicker. So let's qualify only 2 fencers from every section and have only 20 fencers!
Seriously, the real issue to examine is whether or not Summer Nationals a real championship when "qualifiers" are selected by questionable or inequitable rules.
If I understand it right, the gist of the complaint is that a high ranking fencer living in a well attended sectional can get shut out while a low ranking fencer in a less attended sectional can get in because of minimum qualifications? e.g. an A fencer in the North-Atlantic can fail to make the cut while a U fencer in Great Lakes can qualify just to show up.
What I fail to see is how reversion to the 30% solves that, even if you ignore Oiuyt's clarification that a minimum existed even under that standard. Smaller sectionals would still qualify to DivIA what is being implied to be weaker fencers than the bigger sectionals.
Seriously, the real issue to examine is whether or not Summer Nationals a real championship when "qualifiers" are selected by questionable or inequitable rules.
There is only one championship - and a bunch of fencing get togethers*.
If you are in a large division with lots of competitive fencers, and opportunities to train, then the question is why don't you have national points?
but seriously;
*and the get together aspect probably matters more for the long term health of the USFA - making the sport national should be a serious developmental aim.
Maybe I am missing your point, but it is not supposed to be a level playing field. Qualifiers is for the elite of the section to qualify to fence at Summer Nationals. Sections that have sparse population but high attendance for their qualifying event than more populous sections or sections with large numbers but poor attendance (often due to stupid large geographic regions covered by antiquated and illogical sectional boundaries, but that is another argument) will have.
I think you should be a bit more clear in your post so that us "mad at numbers" types don't have to crunch all of your data to hopefully understand your point...
Wow, you obviously missed the point completely.
Let's just look at MS Div 1A. Are you suggesting that all 100% of the fencers that show up for the qualifiers from the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountain and Metro Sections are better (elite) than 75% of the entrants from Mid Atlantic, North Atlantic and Pacific Coast Sections that did/will not qualify? Seven divisions will send an average of 56% of their entrants. Three divisions will only send 25%. No that is not fair. There really is no plausible argument to justify that huge discrepancy.
The only solution I can think of is going to the numbers system for classification where you earn points for every tournament you do depending on the classification of the tournament and your placement. The top 25% of that system goes to Summer Nationals. That would truly be elite fencing.
In the meantime, it is a shame that so many elite fencers from three divisions will be unable to comptete.
Seriously, the real issue to examine is whether or not Summer Nationals a real championship when "qualifiers" are selected by questionable or inequitable rules.
I'm not sure I see how selection minimum qualifiers from smaller sectionals affects whether the summer nationals is a "real championship".
A sectional with 40 fencers would promote 10 under 25% and 12 under 30%. Does the 11th and 12th place fencer at that sectional really have a legitimate gripe about how their exclusion from DivIA renders it less of a real championship? If they would have been that much of a contender in a real championship, wouldn't they have made the top 8 in their own sectional? How does a "walkon" U from a different section affect that?
The complaint is that many good fencers get shut out from tough sections
while others walk-on as a sectional entitlement. Sure, we'd all like points, but Nationals are a good training exercise for young developing fencers. Why are some fencers more entitled to developmental exercise than others?
Restoring the 30% rule, wouldn't fix the problem for tough sections. But clearly it's a step towards parity.
I fail to see why Faire sees the qualifying path as unfair. A fencer rated C and above really has more chances to qualify for nats than lower rated fencers by attending Div 1 nacs and getting points. Too bad if you are an A rated fencer who places 9 out of 10 in a section qualifier. Fence harder next season.
i'mnt
There never was a time, in my opinion, when some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword.
Gen. U. S. Grant
The only solution I can think of is going to the numbers system for classification where you earn points for every tournament you do depending on the classification of the tournament and your placement. The top 25% of that system goes to Summer Nationals. That would truly be elite fencing.
In the meantime, it is a shame that so many elite fencers from three divisions will be unable to comptete.
I agree that a system for classification is needed to transcend these sectional discrepancies. What galls me is that the USFA does nothing to fix the problem of parity when it's obvious for all to see.
The complaint is that many good fencers get shut out from tough sections
while others walk-on as a sectional entitlement. Sure, we'd all like points, but Nationals are a good training exercise for young developing fencers. Why are some fencers more entitled to developmental exercise than others?
Arugably, the "good fencers" being shut out are the ones that are getting better developmental exercise. They have a larger routine pool of other good fencers to fence on a regular basis that the smaller section fencers simply do not have.
If the heart of the problem is the geographical distribution of "good fencers", then does this gripe also translates to Div2 and Div3 qualifiers. Some divisions are weaker than others, and it's easier for a certain caliber fencer to qualify in a weaker competitive division than a stronger one.
Restoring the 30% rule, wouldn't fix the problem for tough sections. But clearly it's a step towards parity.
Would it? I'd be curious to see the math was to how much that 5% adds to qualifying numbers of the big sectionals as well as how much it takes away from the qualifying numbers of the small sectionals. A 6 person sectional would promote either 1.5 or 1.8 under 25%/30%. Is the net effect then only to bloat the tournament size?
Originally Posted by Faire 
