New development in USFA politics!

[keith]

Perhaps a hybrid pay structure

should I start collecting signatures for your candidacy?

[HDG]

should I start collecting signatures for your candidacy?

I'm working on division chair; that should be good for now.

[dekko]

As far as the fundraiser goes, it would likely be a combination of the two, for the really good ones, and the really smart ones.

Regionalization of NAC qualification. Wow, there's a monster can of worms. Unfortunately I have thought about this one and to pull this off it would take running sections 4-5(?) times a year. Yes, you could get lucky and use a large regional event to have the qualifications but, depending on how the paths a specified, it would not be that out of reach to think that the registration for the NAC in question could only have fencer from that region in the qualification event. If that is the case(speculating but not that far fetched) why would an already large event that attracts people from multiple sections(regions) allow their event to be a designated qualification event? Likely they wouldn't. Now that event would be asked to not allow fencers outside the region in question, good luck.

Most sections work, off and on, for months to have sectionals now pile on 3-4 more? Good luck selling that to a section officership and filling that spot for a bunch of volunteers. Now, if there was a regional rep of the USFA, paid position whose primary job was make these events happen, that would be possible. But it would take someone very well versed in every aspect of these kinds of events to make 4-5 happen a year. Now multiply that by the number of regions there would be, last projection I saw would more than the number of sections, and trying to organize all of these with refs(all rated from all over the country), equipment(from where ever this person could find it), space(likely the easiest item on the list but still tricky for some areas) and everything else?

So, for instance NAC A, if we have the same number of regions and sections, would need to have 10(?) of these events nationwide at least a 1.5-3 months out from the event in question, national office registration time, and pull together all the parts needed, then have the parts needed for the NAC itself.

Are we there yet from a infrastructure standpoint? I personally don't think so but maybe. I am not sure we are there ref-wise yet much less a person in every part of the country who could/would do this kind of job.

I personally like the idea of regionalizing a qualifier for a given NAC, whatever flavor it may be, but the logistics of such an undertaking would be immense and take too much of one person's time and effort for how much a year?

This is all assuming weather isn't a factor and these events had be attended by all who want to be there.

Not sure our sport is ready, on lots of fronts, for regionalizing qualifiers for NACs. As good as an idea that it is, implementation of it will be difficult.

[T]

Hi!

1. You use the word "slate". It was pointed out in another thread that candidates are not voted on slates, they are voted on individually. Was that word choice a mere slip, or was it intended to signify something more specific?
2. Your candidate set is listed as being 5 people strong, considerably fewer than those nominated by the Nomination Committee. Can you expound on the reasons for not submitting a full set of candidates?

So many questions... let me see if I can start with the first half of the items.
1. You are correct in that there is no 'slate' voting per se. In other words, each candidate is voted on separately. However, each group of candidates represents a slate of perspectives. USFENCERSFORCHANGE slate of candidates represent specific ideals which can be summarized as a unified vision for the future. This includes looking at the problems and the way their solution is operationalized while questioning the way things are currently done via the status quo. While voters cannot vote candidates into office as a slate (with one check mark), they certainly can vote each candidate of a slate into offfice with a check mark for each candidate on that slate.
2. Our 'slate' has 5 candidates on it (one less than the nominating committee's slate). This represents a candidate for each office except Secretary. The candidates on our slate were chosen specifically because of the strengths they bring to the USFA Exec Committee based on their experiences in fencing and the variety of hats they have worn in that capacity. We fully endorse Brad Baker for Secretary and it was a conscious decision not to contest that position because of two factors:
Brad is a fencer, a coach, and a referee (ie, he has and currently wears many fencing hats) AND he has been a very productive and positive contributor to f.net discussions and the current BOD. He has also been responsive in posting the BOD activities/agendas, etc. and this is the kind of leader that USFENCERSFORCHANGE candidates represent. For example, on the current BOD agenda for the meeting this weekend, Brad makes an excellent motion about merging ASKFRED database and the USFA's. This is something that is long overdue for discussion and in some capacity, implementation!

3. Even if all of your candidates win their respective elections, they will have to work together with the uncontested nominees (barring truly unforeseeable circumstances). You will then experience something akin to a party coalition government, with all its usual difficulties. How do you plan to avoid gridlock, while at the same time getting a reasonable part of your platform turned into policy? Do any of you have practical experience with party coalition govt?

3. I have a great deal of experience working with many people from a variety of backgrounds. I am currently a coordinator for the College of Business at a major state university in Texas and along with this title goes the responsibilty of coordinating many faculty members and department chairs. Believe me, there is plenty gridlock among these stakeholders. As a coordinator, however, you have to do exactly that - coordinate. And this means working with people that don't necessarily hold your viewpoint and coming to a compromised solution that people can live with while at the same time is effective at solving the problems or issues. Essentially, I feel there is no issue that cannot be effectively resolved through communication, respect, compromise and negotiation. Notice my emphasis on communication and respect. These are two important qualities that are required for an effective resolution to any group/committee/BOD problem or issue and the achievement of any goal. I am well-versed in these strategies and have been effective at achieving desired goals in my capacity at the university. I think that all candidates on the nominating committee's slate want the best for fencing- otherwise, why would they put themselves through this process and commit the time. Some may have more selfish objectives but in general, I think they are good people. I have no problem working with a variety of people and through a vision focused around respect and communication, a strong leader can bring everyone to the same page and a shared vision.

4. In one sentence, you combine the expressions "fresh ideas" and "vast experience". This seems to be quite a clash, IMO. Are you claiming that you are forwarding fresh ideas that have not been thought out by any previous fencers at all, or only that they are as of yet not implemented as policy?

4. I doubt we have any ideas that have never been thought of before (although, I guess it is possible). However, if they have been thought of, they certainly have not been implemented. So the issue is putting forward fresh ideas (ie, goals) and operationalizing them effectively AND evaluating their effectiveness. The ideas may be there but there is no evidence of them. It is not sufficient to think up the ideas - operationalizing them in a timely manner is the key and evaluting whether or not the goals have been met is equally important for future changes or modifications.

5. Have you made any efforts to bring in people who do not have any fencing experience, but do have other valuable experience (leadership of other sports NGB, other nonprofits, proven fundraising ability, relevant scientific work, whatever)? Such candidates might be able to think out even fresher ideas! (In several Swedish sports NGB leadership groups, several members have never performed the sport in question, but are there for their other qualifications. That is good, IMO.)

While our 'slate' does not include anyone outside of fencing, that does not preclude the appointment of one or more individuals to the Exec Committee (the Exec Committee gets to appoint 3 people). There is plenty of talent within the fencing community to get things done. While I would agree that it would be nice to have a high-profile fundraiser or corporate sponsor sitting on the Exec Committe, I don't think that is going to happen although I would certainly be interested in talking with anyone that meets this profile who has an interest! With that said, the VP candidate, August Skopik, has a great deal of marketing experience which is one of the strengths he brings to the slate. On the other hand, I have personnally been involved in securing $6million in grants for the various nonprofit organizations that I have worked for. They key to fundraising is to have programs that demonstrate success. Period. Foundations and corporations are very much keyed in on that issue. Without that, you are begging for donations. Foundations and corporations want to be associated with success. If you can demonstrate that you are successful, you have won more than half of the battle. This is not to say that fundraising for fencing is or will be easy but it will be impossible without the demonstration/documentation of success.

[ivlobane]

After reading this, I have to stress the fact that US fencers have had the success to demonstrate.

[T]

Would you appointment a professional fund raiser to the USFA? If yes on a salary or commission basis?

Well, if you are a member of the Association of Fundraising Professional, you will know that it is not ethical to accept a fee structure based on commission or a percentage of the funds you have raised. So any fundraiser that has had a great deal of success will work on salary or perhaps a bonus structure that is not tied to the amount raised.

That point aside, the Executive Director's main responsibility should be fundraising. That quality is the most important one for the position. Period.

[T]

After reading this, I have to stress the fact that US fencers have had the success to demonstrate.

Yes, success in w.saber and some other spots of success in other weapons. I agree, we have some very talented fencers out there that have had a great deal of success. That was not the point that I was making.

Much of the success of these athletes has been due to the hard work and financial backing of parents (in many instances, individual success has been in spite of the USFA, not because of it). Once the athletes become successful, the USFA picks up part of the tab (although, it appears that w.saber is funded substantially). But the success that I was speaking about was 'program' success and organizational success. Corporations and foundations like to see a broad base of success - not small, fairly isolated successes. Certainly, the USFA should use the success of these individuals and programs to raise money - no doubt about it - and they haven't done so - no doubt about it. However, for real sponsorship and fundraising opportunities, the organization needs to show success on multiple fronts with programs developed around replacing these successful athletes. Broad-base appeal is the key to sponsorships. Successful programs are the key to foundation and other grants.

The USOC - which provides a good chunk of financial support to the USFA - wants to see individual results (and Olympic medals) but they are also interested in prospective results too. This is defined by program success which consists of specific goals and measurable objectives. In order for the various weapons to have financial backing from the USOC, they need to demonstrate they have a plan and the ability to achieve it. Isolated fencers may receive individual grants but this does not serve the program needs of the USFA (but I'm happy for the individuals, that's for sure). Successful programs are the key - not only for funding from the USOC and other funding agencies - but also for the success of the USFA fencers (individuals and teams) internationally.

[keith]

Well, if you are a member of the Association of Fundraising Professional, you will know that it is not ethical to accept a fee structure based on commission or a percentage of the funds you have raised. So any fundraiser that has had a great deal of success will work on salary or perhaps a bonus structure that is not tied to the amount raised.

Actually I had no idea what was legal or illegal in the US, but I do know people involved in the voluntary sector in other countries.

That point aside, the Executive Director's main responsibility should be fundraising. That quality is the most important one for the position. Period.

So I am assuming that you are proposing that you (assuming a successful campaign) would fulfill the fund raiser role? I gather from your CV is that you already hold a full time job.

I don't intend to be snide (well only a bit) but my concern with all the wonderful ideas is where exactly the money comes from.

[T]

T,

Thank you for taking the time to read and post your thoughts in the forums.

In your brief statement of your platform, you mention "Collegiate" twice. This struck me as an odd focus for a USFA candidate.

I would like to know what you think is right, and what needs improvement in the relationship between collegiate fencing and the USFA?

What specifically would you change? What is the future role of the USFA in collegiate fencing? Is it different for the variety of levels currently seen in college fencing?

Thank you for your time,

W

This is a very important question and includes both NCAA and collegiate/university-based club programs. There are basically two issues. Junior fencers going into the collegiate ranks and senior fencers coming out of the collegiate ranks.

It is not uncommon (in fact, it is very common) for good junior fencers to enter the collegiate fencing ranks and
1) their national-level fencing performances deteriorate (as measured by present vs past performance at NACs or world cups or their decision to focus solely on collegiate fencing) and/or
2) they do not make the bridge back into national/international level fencing after graduation.

This is evident by the large number of relatively young (ie, junior and cadet) fencers present at the top of the senior national point standings.

One of the ideas that has great promise is the pipeline idea that our platform includes. This type of program would provide a bridge - both into college and out of college after graduation. NCAA is a peculiar animal as anyone knows that has ever had to deal with them. However, they control the game at the collegiate level. Little collaboration between the USFA and the NCAA has ever taken place at an official level. Certainly, many of the USFA coaches have programs at colleges, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to an official program designed to advocate for fencers within the NCAA umbrella. We have many collegiate coaches that could provide this function very successfully but they need the support and backing from the USFA. This includes items such as availability of practice times at the university, competition schedules, funding for world cup competitions and NACs, etc (only a short list).


Part of the problem is that during these collegiate years, the USFA forgets about these fencers. In other words, there is no bridge to travel back over after graduation unless parents are willing to open their pocketbooks (again). We need these talented fencers to compete again at the international level after graduation. By the time they graduate, they have acquired a great deal of experience and additional skills that can help them be successful in the international arena. If the USFA can support the fencers through NCAA and club programs in terms of training/competition/funding opportunities, then it is more likely these talented fencers will keep fencing. This would lead to a deeper program base and subsequently more international success.

[T]

Actually I had no idea what was legal or illegal in the US, but I do know people involved in the voluntary sector in other countries.



So I am assuming that you are proposing that you (assuming a successful campaign) would fulfill the fund raiser role? I gather from your CV is that you already hold a full time job.

I don't intend to be snide (well only a bit) but my concern with all the wonderful ideas is where exactly the money comes from.

No, I do not propose to be the Executive Director (a paid position). I am running for President (a volunteer position). The Executive Director is a paid position that is in charge of the USFA office (who's main responsibility should be fundraising). Currently, Michael Massik holds that position.

[KD5MDK]

If fencer performance is declining while they are fencing NCAA, maybe we need to keep our top fencers out of NCAA fencing.

[keith]

No, I do not propose to be the Executive Director (a paid position). I am running for President (a volunteer position). The Executive Director is a paid position that is in charge of the USFA office (who's main responsibility should be fundraising). Currently, Michael Massik holds that position.

sorry my mistake.

[Wise-Epeeist]

3. Even if all of your candidates win their respective elections, they will have to work together with the uncontested nominees (barring truly unforeseeable circumstances). You will then experience something akin to a party coalition government, with all its usual difficulties. How do you plan to avoid gridlock, while at the same time getting a reasonable part of your platform turned into policy? Do any of you have practical experience with party coalition govt?

3. I have a great deal of experience working with many people from a variety of backgrounds. I am currently a coordinator for the College of Business at a major state university in Texas and along with this title goes the responsibilty of coordinating many faculty members and department chairs. Believe me, there is plenty gridlock among these stakeholders. As a coordinator, however, you have to do exactly that - coordinate. And this means working with people that don't necessarily hold your viewpoint and coming to a compromised solution that people can live with while at the same time is effective at solving the problems or issues. Essentially, I feel there is no issue that cannot be effectively resolved through communication, respect, compromise and negotiation. Notice my emphasis on communication and respect. These are two important qualities that are required for an effective resolution to any group/committee/BOD problem or issue and the achievement of any goal. I am well-versed in these strategies and have been effective at achieving desired goals in my capacity at the university. I think that all candidates on the nominating committee's slate want the best for fencing- otherwise, why would they put themselves through this process and commit the time. Some may have more selfish objectives but in general, I think they are good people. I have no problem working with a variety of people and through a vision focused around respect and communication, a strong leader can bring everyone to the same page and a shared vision.

This sounds very nice.
Unfortunately, the front page of the Website opens with a harsh accusation that those other people would be detrimental to the organization: "Do you want 4 more years of Business As Usual? Or do you want a new, fresh, democratic approach to governing YOUR sport?"
I fear that if the election produces a mix of officers, management could not be nearly as productive and cooperative as you suggest above.

[brtech]

Sorry, couldn't resist

...snip
Once the athletes become successful, the USFA picks up part of the tab (although, it appears that w.saber is funded substantially).

and

Successful programs are the key - not only for funding from the USOC and other funding agencies - but also for the success of the USFA fencers (individuals and teams) internationally.

W. Saber is successful, therefore it gets funded. Q.E.D.

but I digress

I think you need to address the elephant in the room. Your statements thus far reinforce what many of us think: you are primarily interested in supporting elite athletes, you don't think they get enough attention/support, and when faced with tough choices, you will choose to spend money/resources/time/NACs on the upper .5% to the detriment of the lower 99.5%.

Consider your premise: NACs are too big.

Maybe the solution is to develop ways to make bigger better.

The proposed solutions of regional qualifiers don't actually fix the problems of big NACs for most of us; they just push the problem on someone else. If we have regional qualifiers, we need directors, armorers and bout committee, equipment, venues and lots of volunteers to run them. A regional tournament means travel for most fencers and officials, the time commitment is .. the same! The travel costs MIGHT be lower (in many, many cases it won't be).

The advantage of smaller NACs is with the elite fencers, not the great unwashed. The majority don't seem to mind big NACs. They kind of like them. A bigger NAC, to most non-elites, means more DEs for them. That is a good thing.

If we took a vote, harder criteria to qualify for a NAC would lose big.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

The advantage of smaller NACs is with the elite fencers, not the great unwashed. The majority don't seem to mind big NACs. They kind of like them. A bigger NAC, to most non-elites, means more DEs for them. That is a good thing.

If we took a vote, harder criteria to qualify for a NAC would lose big.

A question for Tracy and/or any other alternative candidates:
1. What specific policy suggestion, if any, do wish to get enacted which is directly intended to better the lot of fencers who have no real chance of reaching L16 in Div I nationals or better? I am asking fur policy suggestions specifically made with this group in mind, and which only incidentally, if at all, betters the lot for elite fencers.

I made a tread on this very topic recently. I greatly welcome you to post on it.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[oso97]

Sorry, couldn't resist


and

W. Saber is successful, therefore it gets funded. Q.E.D.

but I digress

I think you need to address the elephant in the room. Your statements thus far reinforce what many of us think: you are primarily interested in supporting elite athletes, you don't think they get enough attention/support, and when faced with tough choices, you will choose to spend money/resources/time/NACs on the upper .5% to the detriment of the lower 99.5%.

Consider your premise: NACs are too big.

Maybe the solution is to develop ways to make bigger better.

The proposed solutions of regional qualifiers don't actually fix the problems of big NACs for most of us; they just push the problem on someone else. If we have regional qualifiers, we need directors, armorers and bout committee, equipment, venues and lots of volunteers to run them. A regional tournament means travel for most fencers and officials, the time commitment is .. the same! The travel costs MIGHT be lower (in many, many cases it won't be).

The advantage of smaller NACs is with the elite fencers, not the great unwashed. The majority don't seem to mind big NACs. They kind of like them. A bigger NAC, to most non-elites, means more DEs for them. That is a good thing.

If we took a vote, harder criteria to qualify for a NAC would lose big.

brtech,

Okay, so here's something to think about (and this is NOT to be construed with me supporting the "Hurley slate"): Are larger NACs the ONLY method of going forward? Is there some way of putting together some sort of multi-tiered system that addresses the organizational and manpower issues while still providing extensive competitive opportunities for fencers of various levels?

I'm leery of people who speak in absolutes. Saying that nationally-organized organized tournaments are the ONLY way to go, period, forever, in all circumstances, is a tad absolutist, no?

Now, I myself would be in favor of some sort of multi-tiered system, whereby fencers earned yearly qualification berths to the national circuit, via some sort of geographically-based system. Something involving sustained performance measures, as opposed to a one-time qualification shot, with fencers are rewarded for actually competing (some sort of rolling points system) and minimizing the effects of extensive travel (yes, people with more money can attend more events, but it should not be an arms race to see who can attend the most). Something where the TRUELY elite have the ability to focus on international performance, those just starting out are channeled to the appropriate level of competition, a greater level of intermediate reward for sustained skill advancement, and opportunities for advancement and promotion.

There ARE possibilities out there, besides only national level events.

[brtech]

Well, we have such a system: Div I, Div II and Div III, with the Jr/Cadet, Yxx and Vet combinations. While we can surely talk about improving the awarding of ratings, the qualification path for Div I/Div II is the ratings. If Jr/Cadet, Yxx or Vet competitions get "too big", then we can have the same sort of qualifications based on ratings.

How do you get rated if you can't qualify for a NAC? Why you attend a local or regional tournament.

Don't get me wrong: I think improving regional competition is a good thing. I'd like to see more, and stronger regional tournaments. I just don't think using them INSTEAD OF allowing fencers who have earned at least C to participate in DIV I NAC is a good idea.

It may be that tightening up eligibility for events is warranted, but right now, from where I sit, I think the whining about how big NACs have become isn't a big issue. Offering up and coming fencers MORE opportunities to fence outside their local circuit is a good idea, which is why I think working to strengthen regional competitions is a good thing. I just don't think it should be used to cut the size of a NAC. I am the parent of three fencers all of whom have had the experience of competing in NACs. If the eligibility criteria was significantly raised, one or two of them wouldn't have had that opportunity. Given what I see are the benefits, and what I see are the problems, I'd rather address the problems and let the NACs grow bigger. There isn't an intrinsic problem in them getting a whole lot bigger than they are. There are, to be sure, a lot of issues and challenges that would have to be faced.

Mostly, I'd like Tracey and the others to discuss the tradeoffs they see in supporting elite fencers (which I am in favor of btw) vs supporting the vast majority of the membership who they want to vote for them.

And of course, we need more discussion on the other issues that I and others have raised, which I think really are the issues that should inform voter choice

[oso97]

Oh, I definitely see your point and where you are coming from. But, I think you might be constrained in your thinking. Step outside the box for a minute .

Currently, NAC sizes are big, yes, but not completely unmanageable. I think the main concern is for when they grow by another 50%. At that point, there are going to have to be some serious tradeoffs considered. Two day events? Single Weapon NACs? Qualifiers? These are serious tradeoffs. And it goes beyond "we don't have the referees or other resources." Seriously, how would you organize a competition of 400 people? The Europeans run HUGE events, particularly in their Cadet level that we send our fencers to, by having two rounds of pools, both of which are flighted and then DE's with repecharge. And they do this over TWO DAYS. We've tried two day events here in the US - they're not the best solution to our issues, for a number of reasons.

I don't think anyone at this point has a handle on the solution, and anyone who says they do hasn't thought through all of the possible implications. Any candidate who comes out with a specific detailed plan for tournament construction is trying to play politics by appealing to certain voting blocks. There are no simple answers.

What we need are people who are intimately familiar with the system and HOW and WHY it works, and who are also committed to finding the best way to re-organize it, keeping the best parts of it, scrapping the broken parts, building the new components and planning for the future. When we on the nominating committee were undertaking our deliberations, this kind of a viewpoint was one of the major things we considered, and played a significant role in our decision-making process.

Okay, so here's a series of things to consider as part of the interlocking puzzle.

What happens if you scrap the current ratings system, and replace it with a points system? Right now C's and above qualify to fence DivI NACs. How do you structure your points system to provide some sort of similar functionality? Can you expand that functionality to the Junior and Cadet level? What happens if you do? How do you structure your points system such that regional/local point earning events are properly organized (see the discussions in this thread. What role do National DivII and DivIII events play? Do they need to be scrapped? Replaced with something else? Where does Summer Nationals come in to play? Would you weight national level DivII and DivIII events more than a regional event that had a dozen people competing who are in the top 32 of the national points list? The other way around? Some other system? What about the RYC/SYC system and combining it with this level? Expanding out further, how does this affect Division-level sanctioning of events? Do we need Divisions? How about Sections? If we scrap those, how does that affect our governance structure, both at the local and national level? What sort of organizational requirements would be required for such a move (technical, referee, BC, armoury, logistical, etc). How might all of this tie in with marketing, coaching development, club promotion, etc?

What if its decided that the rating system is too important to scrap and that the current system is working just fine? How do you keep it supplied with the necessary components? What ARE the necessary components?

Local politics. These are tearing apart divisions. What role do national policies have in creating the openings for these issues? Is more money the answer? Less? More oversight of Divisional goings-on? Of what nature? By whom? In what capacity? Would a general restructuring serve better? How are our operations constrained by the national bylaws? Helped? Hindered? Do they need rewriting? How does that affect our relationship with the USOC?

How are we supporting our international teams with an international political presence? Who should the USFA nominate for election to FIE committees? In what capacity? What roles should they play? How do they report back? How do we coordinate with them and help them coordinate with each other and generate coalitions? If they're busy on the international stage, what holes does that leave in our domestic governance/operational staff? Who can we find to fill those holes? How do we find the next generation to train for national level administration, support staff, and technical staff? What about the generation beyond them?

And, believe me, I've barely scratched the surface.

There are a LOT of questions to answer, and no candidate has even come close to answering them. Nor should they. These are tough, serious questions that will need a lot of study. Input from the members. We need officers with a serious record of work in the association. Officers who are not wedded to any particular block or coalition or beholden to any faction. People who have thought about these questions and the others.

We don't need academics, marketing specialists or people with an axe to grind. We need thoughtful, careful, deliberative LEADERS.

No one on the "Hurley slate" has any experience in leading our association in any significant, substantive capacity.

As far as the others? Here's a summary of their qualifications. These are the people who have been keeping your association afloat amid the turmoil of the past 3.5 years by working quietly, behind the scenes, out of the limelight and fanfare. They are not the status quo - they are the best of the new generation. They have paid their dues, toiled endless hours, done the hard work and are ready.

Step forward. Join with those of us who are supporting the them. They WILL transform the USFA into a better, more capable organization.






And they won't play silly politics to do it.

[teacup]

A bigger NAC, to most non-elites, means more DEs for them. That is a good thing.

Sheer size of entrants doesn't necessarily mean that fencers get a greater opportunity to fence. Inexperienced fencers will still only fence in a six or seven person pool, then if they make the 80% cut perhaps fence one DE.

For fencers to really get in more fencing, perhaps the USFA should look to the European Cadet Circuit format which is four sets of pools on the first day to a complete tableau of 64 on the second day. At 64 there is repachage, or best two out of three to the 32, where repachage starts again.

This would mean overhauling the National system to support single weapon NAC's or other format variations.

[teacup]

I agree with oso97, there are many problems with the current system with many possible solutions and questions that need to be addressed but is the USFA really looking seriously at an overhaul within the next four years?

Isn't it true that the tournament committee has a tentative schedule until 2012 which continues to run National events exactly same as they are now? Haven't some contracts with convention centers already been signed?