Can't make division qualifiers -any way to fence Div II/III at Summer Nationals?

[argonis]

Title pretty much says it all - I'm out of town the weekend my division is holding its championships. Does that mean I'm SOL for qualifying for Div II/III Summer Nat events? Can people still qualify at sectionals? Does it depend on the region? Am I even getting my terms/tournaments right?

Thanks!

[mgriff]

Originally Posted by argonis

Title pretty much says it all - I'm out of town the weekend my division is holding its championships. Does that mean I'm SOL for qualifying for Div II/III Summer Nat events? Can people still qualify at sectionals? Does it depend on the region? Am I even getting my terms/tournaments right?

Thanks!

Read the Athlete's Handbook.

The requirements for qualifying are in section 2.11.3. The only other option is to petition for entry, which is explained in section 2.8.

[HDG]

It largely depends on what your reason is for being out of town that weekend.

[seak]

I can't afford Div 2/3 quals, does that count as a reason to appeal ?

Seriously though, I think that there should be a maximum a division can charge or some sort of standardized something (NC is currently charging 40 for an event, which of course means there is virtually no one pre-reging for the women's events).

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by seak

Seriously though, I think that there should be a maximum a division can charge or some sort of standardized something (NC is currently charging 40 for an event, which of course means there is virtually no one pre-reging for the women's events).

Given the monopoly-like nature of qualifiers and what appear to be excessive fees being charged by some divisions for rediculously small events, I think there's a growing sentiment in this direction.

Minimally I think there should be some strong membership pushback on their local officials.

-B

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Originally Posted by seak

I can't afford Div 2/3 quals, does that count as a reason to appeal ?

Seriously though, I think that there should be a maximum a division can charge or some sort of standardized something (NC is currently charging 40 for an event, which of course means there is virtually no one pre-reging for the women's events).

uh.. holy crap?

That's more than a bit absurd.

[edew]

That's why people should have an interest in electing officers for the division. If not, the old standbys get cushy and do things like raising the fees (probably for a reasonably noble reason like generating money for the annual division officers' party at the Ritz-Carlton) without regard to the membership.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Given the monopoly-like nature of qualifiers and what appear to be excessive fees being charged by some divisions for rediculously small events, I think there's a growing sentiment in this direction.

Minimally I think there should be some strong membership pushback on their local officials.

-B

Sounds like one plank of an election platform...

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by HDG

Sounds like one plank of an election platform...

Not really.

Among other things, as best I can tell, I'll be running unopposed.

I'm not sure how much control over price-setting issues we really want being nationally-run. Pressure to "be reasonable", sure. Actually coming in a setting a maximum? Perhaps, but that would need to be looked at very carefully. Especially given how different different regions/division situations really are.

What's required to run a ME qualifier in Texas and what the participants get out of it might be very different than a WF qualifier in Washington State. Or North Carolina. It's not unreasonable that those events are priced differently. Among other things, set a maximum price closely resembles (in practice, if not in theory) setting a standard price. However that maximum has to be enough to cover the situations where a high price is both warranted and required. Now the places where both of those aren't true will likely end up pushing up towards that max price as well.

This really should probably be a local issue. Community pressure (ground up locally, top down from national-level people, and generally (from sources such as peer pressure on FNet)) would be my first option of how situations like this should be corrected. If a group gets very far out of line and sits there persistently, and manages to hold out in the face of local sentiment, then perhaps more pushing can be done from those sources.

Seak is far from the first person from whom I've heard this complaint. And NC is far from the first division about which I've heard it. Too many divisions see minimal demand elasticity or price-sensitivity with qualifiers. It's bad enough with regular tournaments, but with qualifiers people HAVE to enter or they can't go to Nationals. Until prices go too high and start getting people to either a) decide to skip Nationals completely, or b) abuse the petitioning system, there's not much to slow down the runaway entry fee inflation.

-B

[KD5MDK]

On the other hand, for organizations that have high fixed costs for their tournaments (venue rental, expensive referee travel costs...) the more people who register the lower prices can be. If only a few people are projected to register, you're stuck covering X cost over Y fencers.

Which isn't to say some areas don't charge excessive costs. Just that a full view of the problem is necessary.

[bigdawg2121]

While I wasn't in favor of the fee increases in NC (I know I won't be competing at Div 2/3 quals for that kind of money) I know that part of the reason for the increase was to ensure that the event made money or at least broke even. I imagine it'll make a lot of money this year though and hopefully next year's board can vote to make entry fees closer to something that will break even.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121

I imagine it'll make a lot of money this year though and hopefully next year's board can vote to make entry fees closer to something that will break even.

Because I know I've seen a history of divisions choosing to lower prices after making unreasonably large profits on events, rather than find some other way of blowing the surplus.

"It's the same price we set last year and I don't remember any complaints. Besides, we need to go purchase 4 more conductive strips that we can use twice a season."

-B

[seak]

Yeah, I know (and I've voiced my displeasure to folks in the division I just don't have time to do anything about it). The problem is if no one shows up, they'll still lose money.

i.e. 2 people show up at 40/fencer you need one ref you take in 80 dollars
if 4 people show up at 20 you still only need one ref and you still take in 80,

Except that at 20 you're likely to get a far higher number then 4, while at 40 you're only getting people who really want to go to summer nats/have large amounts of disposable income.

Really Ratings restricted events are some of the biggest money makers out there, when folks are charged normal amounts. Divisions seem to not realize though that the best way to run Quals, is as a ratings restricted event that just happens to have added benefits (and is limited to members of your own division).

[KD5MDK]

What about when you have take in $1500, full stop? How many people can you divide that by as plausibly attending? ie, 50 people at $30 each will cover it. So will 30 people @ 50. Are 50 people likely to attend regardless of price, or do you not have that many competitive eligable fencers in your division?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by seak

Really Ratings restricted events are some of the biggest money makers out there, when folks are charged normal amounts. Divisions seem to not realize though that the best way to run Quals, is as a ratings restricted event that just happens to have added benefits (and is limited to members of your own division).

Also helped by the fact that fencers don't seem to realize that's the best way of treating them, either.

"I didn't go because I'm going to be in Europe for all of July, so I knew I wasn't going to Nationals anyway."

One note, qualifiers do operate under one disadvantage that non-qualifier restricted events down, which is that they are required to be gender-segregated. In smaller divisions that can hurt a bit (although not nearly as much as the rediculously small size of some qualifiers would indicate).

-B

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

What about when you have take in $1500, full stop? How many people can you divide that by as plausibly attending? ie, 50 people at $30 each will cover it. So will 30 people @ 50. Are 50 people likely to attend regardless of price, or do you not have that many competitive eligable fencers in your division?

If you only have 30 people attending a tournament your fixed costs shouldn't be as high as $1500. You're doing something wrong. Especially if those 30 entries are split over 6+ events.

-B

[HDG]

Things get complicated down here b/c of the citizenship / permanent resident requirement for SNs. Our qualifiers are significantly smaller than other events, but venue costs are no lower.

[oiuyt]

Mmmm, that also raises the point that qualifiers can't pull a few (or many) extra bodies from across division boundaries, which normally can help boost attendance numbers, depending on geographic proximity to other centers of fencing. More of an issue with the smaller and closer divisions in the Northeast than most of the rest of the country, naturally.

-B

[KD5MDK]

Or when your Section has mandated a divisional rotation so that Sectionals are hundreds of miles away from all other fencers, like Alaska or El Paso.

We see pretty decent travel from division to division down here. Lots of folks from Louisiana attend Houston tournaments, folks from one part of Texas attend other parts, people from Oklahoma seem willing to travel anywhere for a bout...

[demon_fencer]

You think $40 is bad? Try $50. Nevada Division. Held in one of the clubs. Apparently the ref is a local so its not like they have to pay travel & housing. Has a former Olympian foilist (won a silver medal) registered as a U in the D2/D3/Vet qualifier for epee & sabre. Now that's messed up.