USACFC 2008 Recap

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I figured I would start a new thread, so that things don't get lost in the multiple pages of the last thread.


There were a number of problems at this year's tournament, as there have been and will continue to be every year. Some of these problems are not really fixable (It will take a long time to actually fence that many bouts no matter what, we can minimize it.... but not eliminate it). Some of the problems are associated with the bureaucracy of the conference, some things are probably my fault.

As I personally am looking at what did and did not work, I've noticed things that probably only one or two other people in the room noticed, but I also didn't have an opportunity to see lots of other things.

While I refuse to claim that I'll put together some sort of manual (which was supposed to happen a long time ago by people who are not me), I at least want to put together a "helpful hints" email that people can add to as time goes on............ So--- what worked? What didn't?

Some ideas--- This was the first year of a professional bout committee at this event, and (really) the first year of having a head ref. Good? Bad? Some of the refs were experienced refs from the area. Some were area (and not so area) NCAA fencers. Good? Bad?

Post here, or email USACFC2008@gmail.com if you want to let me know without making it public.

I'll post with some of my observations after discussion starts....

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Here's a post from the other thread.

I believe that it was a contributing factor, adding to the chaos and confusion of getting things started, but I agree that all delays (or even most) can not be blamed on that.

Some of the reason to blame this is strategic: the lack of strips working on time could have easily gone from a delay to a show-stopper. The fact that we should have had ~ 75% more strips than needed, and we still did not have everything working on time probably got some people a bit panicky and irritated.

But I suspect a large portion of this blame was a face-saving measure. Since I believe that it is my face to save or expose, I will deconstruct some of the delays now.

Two words may be used to understand most of those delays: "Beta Software".

Itemizing how things went wrong:

- It took too long to enter in team rosters. Part of this can be blamed on a moderate software bug, (A problem with the data entry screen), but this was fairly easily worked around, and I suspect cost no more than 5 minutes. A larger part of the problem was that this aspect of the BC was not parallelized; all of this work was done on a single computer.

I thought that this would be acceptable, since teams were required to submit their rosters in advance. I thought that there would be roughly 20-40 additions, corrections & deletions, and the majority of these would be turned into the BC 15 minutes before the close of registration. I thought that this would allow this work to be done no later than 5 minutes after close of registration. I was wrong. I am not sure which assumption I was wrong with, but I suspect it was all of them.

- There was a user error (in this case the user was me) in setting up sabre pools. (This cascaded. See more below.)

- There was a serious software error in how certain pools were set up. All like combinations of # of strips & # of teams in a pool were hard-coded. the case of 10 teams on 5 strips had a problem. (I mis-transcribed #s.) This case happened on pool 3 of foil & epee. It was the best decision to make at the time. (this also cascaded. See more below.)

- The software only allowed the user to print all of the bout slips for all of the pools in a weapon, not one pool or one bout slip. This meant that the above to items cascaded down. It took roughly 55 pages of printing to send out an event. I calculated that this was acceptable on a single printer if this was started 20 minutes before teams were to report to strips. (on most modern consumer grade printers, this should be no more than about 5 minutes of printing.) I did not take into account re-seed issues. I should also have allowed the BC to just print the first 2 rounds to get things started.

The above three items caused a significant portion of delays Saturday morning. I think the BC lack of familiarity with the format & procedures caused other problems. Also, the lack of a controlling document that the BC & head ref could consult to answer almost any question on format or rules caused many small problems.

Other software problems that caused other delays:

- There was an error in how the individuals were sorted in results. This caused confusion, but ultimately the BC got things right for individual pools.
This also slowed down the generation of the individual pools.

- Results were generated in the program, which created a spreadsheet, which could be printed. This multi-step process caused some problems.

Not my software, but a software problem none-the-less:

- It was decided that promotion from the first round of individual pools to the second was to be done per pool (4 from each pool) instead of from the field. Neither I or anyone in the BC knew how to get Engarde to do this. (Fencing Time was considered and rejected. I don't remember why.) This caused the BC additional work.

I believe there were many other organizational and computer issues, and while I bear some responsibility for them, I will let others decide if to post and discuss them here.

W

[MyrddinsPrecint]

And some more:

It went well, little slow of a start from people not bringing all the necessary equipment on Saturday, but still got out a reasonable time.

I only have two complaints, the distance to the equipment room (something I hear wasn't by choice) which was an epic climb up what seemed to be a mountain, and the double and triple stripping of some events. I don't really mind double/triple stripping but when me (A Strip) is fencing school #5 on the schedule, my B strip is fencing school 3 and my C strip is halfway across the gym fencing school 2 it makes any kind of coaching kind of impossible.

While there were issues with getting equipment set up, especially getting enough power to all of the strips when teams didn't bring splitters, I don't know that that was actually a limiting factor.

The BC was still entering roster corrections and then drawing up pools after every strip was set up. Sabre was the last of the weapons to get started and all of their strips were set up, with referees out at the strips, at least half an hour before the event was actually ready to start.

I don't see justification for blaming the delays on the equipment issues.

-B

[dcrocket]

I just want to thank everyone who made the event work.

[Wafath]

as a software developer, all i can say is that it happens. it would only be embarrassing in my book if it blew up and caused the need to use paper and pencil,

Awfully damn close. Another delay I forgot to list was the need to go through the pools and make sure all bouts happened, and no team was listed more than twice on a round. (everyone assumed that it was right until we found a case where it was wrong. Then we didn't assume. I'm sure there is a paper written about this somewhere.)

or a delay of more than 1 hour.

Yep. Did that.

Half the reason I posted this is because I needed to itemize the problems for myself. The other reason is that I don't think hiding the problems would do anyone any good.

W

[LordShout]

Another issue some of my fencers brought to me (and I noticed) was a lack of carding. I know this is collegiate fencing (aka cards are rare to begin with) but I know of several cases that just...:

1: A ref didn't card a fencer for bringing a broken weapon to the strip, and I quote "Because you came over and kneeled down" (Ref was in a chair and didn't want to stand" I can't remember if this bout went to 4-4 but I'm fairly certain it might have. Multiple other times when refs just didn't card for this, both in foil and epee, close close bouts that quite possibly would have had different outcomes if one fencer started off a touch (or two) down.

2: Turning of the back numerous times; a fencer would miss, turn around start walking back, and then turn around when they realized their mistake. I'm not talking I saw this a few times all day, I'm saying I saw this in certain bouts multiple times.

Those two were the big ones, it was what (to me) looked like some disorder off the strip, some CC cards not given and some touching of the electrical appartus that I would have carded but those are more minor/less prevalent.

I didn't go to the meetings on saturday morning, had two coaches from my club there so I didn't feel the need to take time out of warmups to go but in future years can the ref instruction include some inspiration to actually enforce the freaking carding rules?

On a positive note I found the foil reffing I watched to be very good, probably the best I've seen all year from a collegiate tournament. I disagreed with a few calls, but by and large nothing too major. Given that a lot of the foil refs were of the younger sort I was scared going in. The sabre reffing however was interesting to watch, I saw one ref that called nothing preperation in the morning and everything preperation in the afternoon. However I was left very happy, I don't think more then two bouts I saw all weekend (in foil) had their outcomes changed because of the reffing, which for a collegiate tournament I consider to be great.

[telkanuru]

Who was the referee corps anyway? Last I checked all the ones I know were saying they weren't asked.

[noodle]

Yep. Did that.

Half the reason I posted this is because I needed to itemize the problems for myself. The other reason is that I don't think hiding the problems would do anyone any good.

W

the tournament was held up for more than an hour based entirely on software? as i understood it, it was delayed for a multitude of reasons.

[Wafath]

the tournament was held up for more than an hour based entirely on software? as i understood it, it was delayed for a multitude of reasons.

I am not saying "If the software was perfect we would have started on time."

I am saying that the last pool to start on Saturday morning was started at least an hour after it was supposed to, and the delay by more than an hour was directly attributable to software & system design problems. No one thing cost the BC an hour, but the combination of many did.

W

[AndrewH]

Some general thoughts:

1. First and foremost, the makeup of the sabre pools. Pool 1 had Rutgers, ASU, Florida and UMASS. That's the top 3 finishers in the same pool, plus the previous year's winner. Something wrong there.

2. Second, from what I understand the individual selection criteria changed throughout the day. It was set at 2 A's per pool (retarded, considering how unbalanced the pools were. There were two A's from my pool, Shanahan and Becker, who deserved to go but couldn't). But later on, more than 2 A's from each pool made it in (specifically in WE). At least that's how it seemed when I went through the results. While the original selection process may not have been fair, I think it was even more unfair to change it in the middle of the event.

3. Sabre reffing was hit or miss. There were many excellent refs (Dilworth, Vogt, Kopylov, Snyder, Griffith & Bralow). However, there were some downright terrible ones (not going to name names here). I won a bout 5-4 in which every call was reversed from what it should be, and apparently awarded based on who screamed loudest. I even argued a touch and had the opponent's point taken away without explanation. But overall, I was happy with the reffing.

4. Yes, Saturday took forever. I understand beta software issues, hopefully things will be ironed out in the future.

5. Yes, the climb to the equipment rooms was epic. On the plus side, all those stairs were a great warmup.

6. Overall it was a great event. I had lots of fun, I would love to be back next year but I'm graduating in May.

[dberke]

Not my software, but a software problem none-the-less:

- It was decided that promotion from the first round of individual pools to the second was to be done per pool (4 from each pool) instead of from the field. Neither I or anyone in the BC knew how to get Engarde to do this. (Fencing Time was considered and rejected. I don't remember why.) This caused the BC additional work.

Anyone have any more info on this decision?

Dan

[AndrewH]

cream rises to the top....makes the whole seeding discussion trivial....

Oh sure, I'm not complaining that my pool was too hard. We beat who we had to beat. But that means the other pools are too easy, and weaker teams will be overseeded.

I mean, if seeding doesn't matter, why doesn't the USFA throw all the A's into one pool, B's into another, etc? Because the resulting seeding wouldn't accurately represent the relative strengths of each fencer.

[Wafath]

Anyone have any more info on this decision?

I believe $$ and the fact that much of the hired BC had familiarity with engarde.

I own a licensed copy, but it would have required 3 licenses for the setup that was planed.

W

[oiuyt]

2. Second, from what I understand the individual selection criteria changed throughout the day.

How's that possible? Isn't it a simple matter to just follow the method that's been published in advance?

Oh. I think I see the difficulty now.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the selection criteria changed event-to-event. That said, the criteria used was NOT the one that I'd been told in advance of the event when I asked.

Indeed, at one point a fencer I know came up to me to ask what the criteria was. He had heard three different selection methods and knew he was borderline for advancing (at least one of the three methods he'd been told would have resulted in his not making the cut). I inquired at the BC and got the method they were using. I had to go back to the fencer and tell him that NONE of the three he'd been told were what was being used.

Perhaps the #1 lesson that we should learn from this year's event (as well as from last year's, the year before, etc.) is to communicate things and publish things in advance.

The format should be sent out well in advance of the tournament. The agenda for the team rep meeting should be sent out in advance of the tournament.* The schedule should be sent out well in advance of the meeting. All of the above should be posted to the USACFC website.

-B

* Especially given that "Well, I put it into the agenda" was presented as a response to a question about a proposed new format at the team rep meeting. Note that while this statement was true, the agenda was not distributed to the teams, nor was it available at the tournament.

[mrbiggs]

Some general thoughts:

1. First and foremost, the makeup of the sabre pools. Pool 1 had Rutgers, ASU, Florida and UMASS. That's the top 3 finishers in the same pool, plus the previous year's winner. Something wrong there.

2. Second, from what I understand the individual selection criteria changed throughout the day. It was set at 2 A's per pool (retarded, considering how unbalanced the pools were. There were two A's from my pool, Shanahan and Becker, who deserved to go but couldn't). But later on, more than 2 A's from each pool made it in (specifically in WE). At least that's how it seemed when I went through the results. While the original selection process may not have been fair, I think it was even more unfair to change it in the middle of the event.

3. Sabre reffing was hit or miss. There were many excellent refs (Dilworth, Vogt, Kopylov, Snyder, Griffith & Bralow). However, there were some downright terrible ones (not going to name names here). I won a bout 5-4 in which every call was reversed from what it should be, and apparently awarded based on who screamed loudest. I even argued a touch and had the opponent's point taken away without explanation. But overall, I was happy with the reffing.

EDIT: I misunderstood the foil seeding.

The criteria for individuals were OK in that the top few made it to individuals and then made it to the top. I think letting a few more qualify might be nice. I realize that this might not be at all feasible in terms of time and space. But if there were ~90 fencers starting and that's cut down to 16 on the basis of 9 or 10 bouts, it's easy to see how a fencer making one mistake and an unlucky pairing could keep qualified fencers out of individuals, certainly if they're not the best or second best in the tournament. Also on this note, since the pools are seeded by team, even if they are seeded correctly the top 4 could easily be in the same pool (and then only two or three could qualify under the current system). IIRC, the top few fencers were often not from the top few teams in MF although I'd need the results to verify that.

Foil reffing was also hit or miss but the BC did a good job keeping the good refs on Sunday in my experience. From what I saw some would definitely disagree; maybe I just got lucky. On Saturday there were definitely some yell-loud-or-lose-the-touch situations.

The event was actually run OK in my opinion. It was hardly fast but I've certainly encountered much worse, especially considering the size of the tournament. However, I think that next year the format should be made more explicit. The night before the tournament everyone should know exactly how the events will happen, and how the results will be calculated. It's not only a matter of convenience to the teams, but it also saves time for the Bout Committee who don't have to explain what's going on to every coach, and for the tournament in general because fencers will know where they have to go faster. If it's a complicated format like this one, posting it wouldn't hurt either.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Again, like Wafath, some of the problems are nearly entirely my fault, and I also don't think that it helps to hide the problems.

First off, we were completely done and nearly ALL cleaned up by 6 on Sunday. This is an amazing record for the event. Even Saturday went shorter than any time previous, I'm pretty sure. This is amazing, and it's probably due to how many strips we had set up. (And some other things). Everyone involved should be proud of this.

There were trade offs-- We wanted a huge number of strips, and we could use all the gyms. We didn't want to put fencing in two places such that teams had to go back and forth (since they were much farther away than Michigan's two gyms), we didn't want to put one event hidden away far away from the bout committe, and we didn't want to lose the strips. While we manage enough strips and all the gear for The Big One, it's also not as many teams. We decided strips were more important than gear being close. (Whoever wrote the funny signs on the way up is my personal hero, btw)

I would have liked basic info up on the website earlier. Every piece of information we had up, I would have wanted earlier. Some things were totally in my control, but things like the schedule were not. I wasn't even emailed the schedule at any point-- other people handled that one.

I would have like promotional packets to have been collated and handed to coaches/captains/team reps when they checked in their teams. This was my deal entirely, and then my grandmother died, and I handed it off to someone else. I should have been more explicit in what I wanted, and I should have started it earlier, so that attending my grandmother's funeral wouldn't have affected it.

We should have had more grounded strips. Both BU and Tufts have grounded strips and are club schools. It's reasonable that they didn't have room to bring them that weekend, I suppose, (I wasn't really involved in these negotiations), but someone might have been able to bring them (a ref, a parent, whatever). I'm not sure that all opportunities were explored. A perk rather than necessary, but still. If we were sending a van out from Smith to retrieve them, we could have potentially borrowed from nice varsity schools as well.

In defense of the software issues: Wafath sent out the code about a month before the event, asking people to test it. He knew that there must have been bugs he couldn't see, and it's really not fair to ask the person who writes the code to debug at that point, they just won't see the issues. Perhaps the list of people wasn't long enough, or at least not the right groups.... but the people involved largely did not test it, or care that it ought to be tested. While there were problems, the blame cannot lie completely on him just because he created the software. He tried to do the responsible thing and largely wasn't helped.

The lack of clear format is a symptom of the way the conference is run. Officer elections this year were not terribly... democratic. Voting was done by vague mumbling and hand movement, Stephen Colbert would probably be happy. I would be optimistic about the format being set in stone and available to all with easy access, except I am, occasionally, realistic.



............ I think I'll eat food before I talk about refs and seeding.

[oiuyt]

Part of the discrepency between the two columns is an artifact of how the numbers were generated.

Tufts (1st this weekend) looks like a 4 seed, but the were the top-seeded NEIFC team, so they should list as a #1, W&M (2nd this weekend) looks like a 6 seed, but they were the top-seeded MACFA team, so they should list as a #1. Etc. Making that adjustment would help the chart tremendously.

The numbers associated with the team were used for relative ranking within the conference, not overall, so Tufts and W&M were correctly seeded as #1 seeds. This isn't a flaw with the system, it's an issue with how the system presents information when conferences that are mixed (club and varsity) are being looked at. It looks like a problem but it isn't.

-B

[mrbiggs]

Part of the discrepency between the two columns is an artifact of how the numbers were generated.

Tufts (1st this weekend) looks like a 4 seed, but the were the top-seeded NEIFC team, so they should list as a #1, W&M (2nd this weekend) looks like a 6 seed, but they were the top-seeded MACFA team, so they should list as a #1. Etc. Making that adjustment would help the chart tremendously.

The numbers associated with the team were used for relative ranking within the conference, not overall, so Tufts and W&M were correctly seeded as #1 seeds. This isn't a flaw with the system, it's an issue with how the system presents information when conferences that are mixed (club and varsity) are being looked at. It looks like a problem but it isn't.

-B

Oh. Then do we have access to the actual seeds?

I based my earlier comments about the seeding on the numbers as they were posted (the ones I listed above), so I guess they should be disregarded.

[mrbiggs]

Both BU and Tufts have grounded strips

At least half of that is not true.



Seriously, though, I'm pretty sure we don't have grounded strips. At least I've never seen or heard of them, including when we host meets.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

At least half of that is not true.



Seriously, though, I'm pretty sure we don't have grounded strips. At least I've never seen or heard of them, including when we host meets.

Then I made that up, and there was some other local-ish school that had them and couldn't bring them. Or something. Again, someone else dealt with that, so.. yeah.

A lot of the stuff done in the last week wasn't stuff I was involved in due to me being off campus. It makes this recap harder.....



OH! By the way, the tshirt company finally called us 20 minutes after the last team left. It was great.

{We ordered the tshirts, and weren't picking them up until basically we could just bring them directly to where we were selling them--- only they closed early without letting anyone know, and didn't answer phones or check email all weekend--- so all of the tshirt stuff is going to have to be SHIPPED, which is a pain in the ass for everyone.}