2007-8 USFA data - A year later

[JEC]

Last year, I posted on 4/10/07 an analysis of USFA data (4/4/07). Today, this is a brief analysis of data from 3/12/08, almost a year later.

4/07

USFA data - all sections including national div.

Weapon ---------- Saber ------ Epee ------ Foil

Total Fencers ---- 18185 ----- 18185 ----- 18185
Rated Fencers ---- 1875 ------ 3291 ------ 3464

A rated fencers ----- 101 ------ 368 ------ 207
B rated fencers ----- 206 ------ 546 ------ 347
C rated fencers ----- 300 ------ 667 ------ 631
D rated fencers ----- 435 ------ 739 ------ 888
E rated fencers ----- 833 ------ 971 ------ 1391

U unrated fencers -- 16310 --- 14894 --- 14721


3/08

USFA data - all sections including national div.

Weapon ---------- Saber ------ Epee ------ Foil

Total Fencers ---- 18007----- 18007 ----- 18007
Rated Fencers ---- 1869 ------ 3347 ------ 3287

A rated fencers ----- 114 ------ 413 ------ 224
B rated fencers ----- 209 ------ 591 ------ 334
C rated fencers ----- 304 ------ 683 ------ 617
D rated fencers ----- 416 ------ 666 ------ 823
E rated fencers ----- 826 ------ 994 ------ 1289

U unrated fencers -- 16138 --- 14660 --- 14720



Over the past 11 months we lost 178 competitive fencers, while we now have 56 more rated fencers in Epee, 177 less rated Foil fencers and 6 less rated Saber fencers. [perhaps they were all Foil fencers fed up with timing changes]

We have a few more A's in Foil, but less of each of the other Foil rating categories (perhaps April vs March comparison). In Epee, healthy increases on each rating (but for a slight decrease on D's). We now have more ratings in Epee than Foil or Saber (as compared to 4/07).

Old 4/07 thread: USFA Membership and Rating Data - data


NOTE:
mfp made the comment that the 4/4/07 data was only competitive fencers while 3/12/08 included competitive and non-competitive. mfp is correct in his post, and I change the numbers to reflect that.

[mfp]

3/08

USFA data - all sections including national div.

Weapon ---------- Saber ------ Epee ------ Foil

Total Fencers ---- 19179 ----- 19179 ----- 19179
[...]

Over the past 11 months we gained about 1000 competitive fencers (994)

While there may be 19,179 rows of data in the most recent csv file on the USFA website, that doesn't mean there are 19,179 competitive fencers. Rows 18,008 onward are listed as "non-competitive" memberships.

[Nospam]

JEC,

Do you have a breakdown of your stats by Division?

(How long did it take you to put that together?)

[JEC]

While there may be 19,179 rows of data in the most recent csv file on the USFA website, that doesn't mean there are 19,179 competitive fencers. Rows 18,008 onward are listed as "non-competitive" memberships.

Point well taken. However, the data from 4-4-07 does not have membership status for true comparison. With a quick scan, I do not recognize parents from the SWS who are not competitive. Perhaps, it was limited to competitors. Of interest is that the 3-12-08 data has 21 fencers listed as non-competitive with ratings (as recent as 07).

[mfp]

Point well taken. However, the data from 4-4-07 does not have membership status for true comparison. With a quick scan, I do not recognize parents from the SWS who are not competitive. Perhaps, it was limited to competitors.

Web archives show that back in April 2007 the USFA website said:

Please use these listings to verify your membership status and current classification. This list includes competitive members only. Associate and non-competitive members may request verification through the National Office: info@usfencing.org

Of interest is that the 3-12-08 data has 21 fencers listed as non-competitive with ratings (as recent as 07).

Members self-identify so I'd imagine that's simply members with a competitive membership in a past season who renewed and paid for this season as an associate or coach associate. They don't lose their classifications and the USFA still tracks the previously earned ratings. Those members just can't compete this season in USFA events.

[jjefferies]

So overall that's about a 5% increase in membership. Compared to the US general population growth of .95 % increase over the past year that's not that bad. But we could still do better.

[mfp]

So overall that's about a 5% increase in membership.

Only if you're very, very bad at math.

[Tomas N]

Only if you're very, very bad at math.

I'm pretty good at math and I still come up with about a 5% increase.

Tomas

[mfp]

I'm pretty good at math and I still come up with about a 5% increase.

Tomas

An important part of a math story problem is knowing what numbers to use your math on ...

If people read through the entire thread (or even just the 2nd post), they should see that the 4/4/07 data listed 18,185 competitive USFA members while the data from 3/12/08 lists 18,007 competitive USFA members.

18,185 to 18,007 is not a 5% increase.

Anyone comparing 18,185 to 19,179 is comparing apples to oranges. Or in this case comparing apples to the sum of (apples and associate apples).

The data does not show an increase in competitive USFA members let alone a 5% increase.

[JEC]

I corrected the numbers in the above thread as mfp is correct at pointing out a problem with my data. Thanks for double checking!

[KD5MDK]

It is possible that some 178+ people will have joined the USFA in able to attend their Divisional or Sectional qualifier and fence at Summer Nationals (but seems weird) since 3/12/08 and by 4/4/08, to make the dates line up. Otherwise we're looking at a (for the time) decrease in competitive memberships.

[T]

Since we don't really know if JEC's data from 2007 includes noncompetitive members (which the 2008 data includes), we can't really compare the two at all. If JEC's 2007 data includes the same competitive and noncompetitive membership classes as his 2008 data does - then we can compare and determine membership growth or loss; otherwise, we can't.

EDIT: I see that JEC corrected his data to actually show that the USFA has lost membership. So, now, we can compare apples to apples...

______________________________

With that said, membership growth is an important issue for the USFA in the upcoming quad as this a great revenue source. We need to

1) provide support for clubs and coaches for local programs that are designed to attract and retain new members (including the many non-USFA-member coaches),
2) attract non-USFA fencers (like high school, rec center, and college fencers) to join the USFA, and
3) attract new USFA members that are now associated with current members (like parents).

If we take #3 as an example, (numbers are rounded and assumptions are noted)

We know that the USFA has about 20,000 total members;

I also know (first hand) that there are about 9000 voting members (which includes members that are at least 18 years old);

Let's also assume that about 1000 of the existing membership are parents that are noncompetitive members.

That leaves about 10,000 members which are youth members - under the age of 18.

Let's also assume that some of these youth have siblings that are also fencers -- so let's assume that these 10,000 youth members represent 6000 families (this is probably a conservative estimate).

Each of these 6000 families has at least 1 parent that is extremely involved in the sport (all fencing-parents out there know what this means!).

So, the USFA has approx. 6000 parents that are not members but yet are paying some pretty good bills for their child to fence.

Now, let's assume that the USFA could provide membership benefits (travel discounts, etc.), parent info seminars (online and face-to-face at JOs and Summer Nationals) which included topics such as 'How to help your child be successful at fencing', 'How to buy equipment', 'How to fix equipment', 'Getting your child into college', 'How to travel on a budget', 'How to make an international team', etc., and input into the USFA's direction through a Parents committee. The idea is to provide an incentive and a reason for parents to become USFA members as well as give them a voice in the governance of a sport that they already spend a lot of money on.

These parents would be noncompetitive members (at least most of them would be - otherwise, they would already probably be USFA members) so a reasonable membership fee would be $50/year (and this could include both parents - in a 2-parent family).

6000 x $50 = $300,000 revenue from new membership fees which could be realized in a relatively short time period.

This revenue increase represents only 1 of the 3 propositions above and would be relatively inexpensive to adopt.

Membership growth should be a priority for the next USFA Board of Directors!

For more specific priorities and solutions - check out our website (see below).

[mfp]

I also know (first hand) that there are about 9000 voting members (which includes members that are at least 18 years old);

Does that number of 9000 voting members only include those who paid for this membership year by Feb 1st as well as are 18 by that date?

However, no person will be eligible to vote in USFA affairs at the national level unless the person's dues for the membership year in which the person seeks the right to vote are received by the USFA National Office on or before February 1 of that membership year.

[Rock]

Our club requires USFA membership to fence anyone. However, due to the USFA's policy of allowing 1st time members who join on April 1st or later to receive membership for the remainder of the current season plus the following season, if a student starts in late February through March, I will usually wait to send in his/her membership until April 1st.

In our club, which is not a huge one, perhaps 5 to 15 beginners fall into this category each year.

If there are other clubs taking advantage of the USFA 1st time member policy, then perhaps this should be considered when comparing April vs March membership measurement dates.

Rock

[T]

Does that number of 9000 voting members only include those who paid for this membership year by Feb 1st as well as are 18 by that date?

yes, the 9000 was the voting members as of Feb 1 and include everyone who was at least 18 years old on that date.