USACFC format discussion redux (2007-2008 edition)

[oiuyt]

See attached.

Call for discussion and voting on format(s) for next year (and presumably onwards).

If you are associated with a USACFC school (or one that might become one), please make sure to at least cross-post your comments to the USACFC discussion areas (mailing list, etc.). Fairly quick timeline on this, so read it and get feedback in soon.

-B

[larkmaj]

In every contigency, are all the decisions for advancement based on weapon performance (3-person team) or on the entire team? I assume (and hope) it is the former, as a member of a club which may or may not have a women's team if we decide to go (and maybe one women's weapon at that).

Basically what I'm asking is if incomplete teams (missing a weapon) will be at any disadvantage.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Incomplete teams should be at a disadvantage. You should not be able to win with an incomplete team, or it should at least be incredibly hard to do.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Incomplete teams should be at a disadvantage. You should not be able to win with an incomplete team, or it should at least be incredibly hard to do.

It should be very difficult to do well at 6 weapon with a partial team.

It should be difficult to do well at 3 weapon without full squads.

But due to the fact that there are a number of schools who don't have both men's and womens (and some schools have a much better men's or women's team), it is worth considering that men and women's results shouldn't be totally married.....

(granted, I'm not sure if that's what you're saying...)

[mrbiggs]

All the formats except 2 and 5 seem to be nearly impossible to run for the given number of strips and teams in a weekend.

I'm far from an expert on running large tournaments, but it pretty much says that right in the proposal.

I'm interested to see how the seeding will be done. Many college fencers don't have any sort of USFA classification, there are regional strength differences, and many teams don't have the money to travel like NCAA teams.

[Wafath]

All the formats except 2 and 5 seem to be nearly impossible to run for the given number of strips and teams in a weekend.

That does seem to be the intent of the document.

I'm interested to see how the seeding will be done. Many college fencers don't have any sort of USFA classification, there are regional strength differences, and many teams don't have the money to travel like NCAA teams.

Good question. Most teams that participate do have some form of regular season. In theory, this was the guiding factor for last years seeding. Seeding based on individuals and last years results have also been discussed. It will probably be a while before that is addressed.

W

[noodle]

That does seem to be the intent of the document.



Good question. Most teams that participate do have some form of regular season. In theory, this was the guiding factor for last years seeding. Seeding based on individuals and last years results have also been discussed. It will probably be a while before that is addressed.

W

just to throw in my $0.02, i think seeding by previous results are the most solid indicator.

generally speaking, teams are consistent in their results. you can generally pick where a team is going to shake out, with a margin of maybe +-5 positions, based on their past performances. while that is a pretty wide range, it still gives you a wonderful basis for seeding. i can do an analysis on it, if its required.

[Wafath]

just to throw in my $0.02, i think seeding by previous results are the most solid indicator.

generally speaking, teams are consistent in their results. you can generally pick where a team is going to shake out, with a margin of maybe +-5 positions, based on their past performances. while that is a pretty wide range, it still gives you a wonderful basis for seeding. i can do an analysis on it, if its required.

Require? Certainly not. But it might be interesting to see it.

In theory, season records should show year-to-year variations better than previous results.

I know for the 6 MACFA teams at IU, our three weapon relative positions lined up with our MACFA championship positions. There was some variation in the squads, but overall, MACFA championships was a good indicator. Probably a better indicator than previous years results.

W

[larkmaj]

In theory, season records should show year-to-year variations better than previous results.

This is assuming that the average level of fencing in each area is about the same.

[larkmaj]

Incomplete teams should be at a disadvantage. You should not be able to win with an incomplete team, or it should at least be incredibly hard to do.

To clarify, by incomplete teams I do not mean 2 fencers in a weapon. I'm reffering to just a men's team, or 1 or 2 women's weapons. Would a single weapon of women be able to advance through the tournament? I am not asking about placing well in the overall standings either.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I think the ideal format is to compete as complete men's and women's teams. However, there is no real feasible way to do that, so the advancement through squads is as close as you can manage. If there were a way though, to compete as a whole 3 weapon team, that would be much more preferable than competing as seperate squads.

[noodle]

Require? Certainly not. But it might be interesting to see it.

In theory, season records should show year-to-year variations better than previous results.

I know for the 6 MACFA teams at IU, our three weapon relative positions lined up with our MACFA championship positions. There was some variation in the squads, but overall, MACFA championships was a good indicator. Probably a better indicator than previous years results.

W

i just created a thorough spreadsheet, but i won't be able to show you the results till tomorrow.

it used a weighted average to predict the outcome of 2007 based on subsets of the previous years' results and it was surprisingly accurate using the previous two years' results as seed data. i'll post up what i have tomorrow, i think.

[noodle]

i just created a thorough spreadsheet, but i won't be able to show you the results till tomorrow.

it used a weighted average to predict the outcome of 2007 based on subsets of the previous years' results and it was surprisingly accurate using the previous two years' results as seed data. i'll post up what i have tomorrow, i think.

its attached.

DISCLAIMER: i'm an engineer who took a stats class, not a mathematician or statistician. feel free to find fault in my numbers if you want

what i did was try to project the 2007 results based on the previous results sets. i tried to predict them using the past 4 years' results, the last 3 years' results, and the last two years' results.

as you can see, the 2 years data set is the best predictor, with the 3 years set coming in a reasonably close second if you discard outliers (and there always will be outliers).

being able to predict the outcome of a very random event within the precision of about 3 positions seems to me to be a pretty reasonable way to seed a competition (not like its any better than the USFA classification system)

[Wafath]

I think you have made a good start, but I would focus on squad level results. Any seeding done would happen at that level, instead of the 6-weapon level.

W

[noodle]

I think you have made a good start, but I would focus on squad level results. Any seeding done would happen at that level, instead of the 6-weapon level.

W

while i agree, i don't really have the time to do all of them right now.