USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #8: USFA back payments

[telkanuru]

1- You mention a national sponsor. What, if any, effect would that have on both NCAA fencers and/or amature status for the Olympics?

2- If you reduce NACs to 2 days, do you increase the frequency and/or subdivide further (ie. start having just a DIV III NAC)? How do you forsee either of the above impacting attendance? Are you pushing for regionalization here?

3- Could you possibly be more vauge?

4- Do you have a plan beyond

People can deal with not getting reimbursed

?

[oiuyt]

1- You mention a national sponsor. What, if any, effect would that have on both NCAA fencers and/or amature status for the Olympics?

Shouldn't be an issue at all.

US Fencing having one or more sponsors doesn't affect individual amateur status at all. While amateur status is required for NCAA athletes it's not required for Olympic athletes unless the international governing body requires it. The FIE doesn't.

-B

[epeemike81]

Proposal:

Limit entries to World Cup events in 2008-09 to 4 per event; if there are more than 4 entries per event, then the Referee expense will come from the weapons budget.

Rationale:

Countries are required to send 1 referee per 5 athletes registered. If entries exceed this, then the weapons budget will be responsible for Referee expense.

This would seem to significantly reduce the number of people competing for the world team. In fact, it would lock in the top 4 on the points list at the beginning of the season as our world team. It would be impossible for those 5 or below to crack into this top 4. This would benefit, of course, the current top four in each weapon, notably including Kelly Hurley, Courtney Hurley, and Soren Thompson.

I don't know if that was a motivating factor in this proposal (frankly, I think it likely was not as Kelly and Courtney are in no real danger of being displaced anytime soon), but it clearly illustrates the MASSIVE conflict of interest that many of us have been trying to point out.

-m

[KD5MDK]

Has anybody done a reasonable budget for a 2 day NAC tournament that accurately depicts the appropriate tradeoffs in cost and quality?

[notalent]

This would seem to significantly reduce the number of people competing for the world team. In fact, it would lock in the top 4 on the points list at the beginning of the season as our world team. It would be impossible for those 5 or below to crack into this top 4. This would benefit, of course, the current top four in each weapon, notably including Kelly Hurley, Courtney Hurley, and Soren Thompson.

I don't know if that was a motivating factor in this proposal (frankly, I think it likely was not as Kelly and Courtney are in no real danger of being displaced anytime soon), but it clearly illustrates the MASSIVE conflict of interest that many of us have been trying to point out.

-m

As CadetVet points out we can have the fencers pay for the second ref. My proposal (your welcome T) is a one year cost saving measure, which if applied to all events would save 200-350k. HPC spent us into a significant portion of the debt, it is now time for them to help pay it back.
I can live with having this years World team members be next years as well. We could do our selection for world cups based off of NAC points only. We could resrict the number of WC to 2, which would then allow for 5 and lower to fence in WCs as well. That may be the only fair way.

[Peach]

I can live with having this years World team members be next years as well.

I doubt that others trying to make the World Team could live with that, though.

[T]

This would seem to significantly reduce the number of people competing for the world team. In fact, it would lock in the top 4 on the points list at the beginning of the season as our world team. It would be impossible for those 5 or below to crack into this top 4. This would benefit, of course, the current top four in each weapon, notably including Kelly Hurley, Courtney Hurley, and Soren Thompson.

I don't know if that was a motivating factor in this proposal (frankly, I think it likely was not as Kelly and Courtney are in no real danger of being displaced anytime soon), but it clearly illustrates the MASSIVE conflict of interest that many of us have been trying to point out.

-m

1) There are 14 world cup events; if 4 people went to each one, then that would be 56 entries.
2) This is NOT limiting world cup entries -- it is shifting who pays for the referees. If the National Coach wants to Designate 5 or 6 world cup events and each of them has 12 entries, that is fine, but the money for the extra referees will come from the weapons program. How is that a conflict of interest? It simply makes the national coach responsible for budget expenses that result from his/her decision to Designated world cup events. HPC decisions need to be coordinated with budget (which obviously has been lacking in the recent past) and this is one way to correct that problem.

[tchwojko]

1) There are 14 world cup events; if 4 people went to each one, then that would be 56 entries.
2) This is NOT limiting world cup entries -- it is shifting who pays for the referees. If the National Coach wants to Designate 5 or 6 world cup events and each of them has 12 entries, that is fine, but the money for the extra referees will come from the weapons program. How is that a conflict of interest? It simply makes the national coach responsible for budget expenses that result from his/her decision to Designated world cup events. HPC decisions need to be coordinated with budget (which obviously has been lacking in the recent past) and this is one way to correct that problem.

Adding a monetary disincentive to have more than 4 still exhibits a conflict of interest.

How does moving the system to favor your fencers' status quo not show a conflict of interest?

A "conflict of interest" doesn't mean that the decisions are wrong, just that you are fairly directly vested in the results of those choices.

[CadetVet]

As CadetVet points out we can have the fencers pay for the second ref. My proposal (your welcome T) is a one year cost saving measure, which if applied to all events would save 200-350k. HPC spent us into a significant portion of the debt, it is now time for them to help pay it back.
I can live with having this years World team members be next years as well. We could do our selection for world cups based off of NAC points only. We could resrict the number of WC to 2, which would then allow for 5 and lower to fence in WCs as well. That may be the only fair way.

Actually, I was saying that all refs should be paid for - at least in part - by the fencers traveling. My concern with having 4 go for free is that #5 is really hit (and will get the evil eye from 1-4's parents/financiers).

The simple fact is that those currently on the world team will not always be there - and we have to encourage the "pyramid" - I think a more accurate description than the pipeline. If we don't work to develop the next layers of the pyramid, then then when the pointy ones at the top retire, we'll look like a Mayan pyramid (rather than an Egyptian one) - flat on top with no one at the point.

T's (and notalent's) suggested approach (limiting or drastically increasing the cost for 5 and beyond) will stultify the top, reduce development of the next generation, and really be a bad idea. In essence, we stop funding our R&D because we can't manage our operations - a really bad idea.

[IanSerotkin]

T's (and notalent's) suggested approach (limiting or drastically increasing the cost for 5 and beyond) will stultify the top, reduce development of the next generation, and really be a bad idea.

Now there's a catchy campaign slogan:

Destultification '08!

[epeemike81]

1) There are 14 world cup events; if 4 people went to each one, then that would be 56 entries.
2) This is NOT limiting world cup entries -- it is shifting who pays for the referees. If the National Coach wants to Designate 5 or 6 world cup events and each of them has 12 entries, that is fine, but the money for the extra referees will come from the weapons program. How is that a conflict of interest? It simply makes the national coach responsible for budget expenses that result from his/her decision to Designated world cup events. HPC decisions need to be coordinated with budget (which obviously has been lacking in the recent past) and this is one way to correct that problem.

right, but should the weapon coach choose not to use his/her budget thus (and by making it a monetary trade-off, you're providing a disincentive to do so), 1-4 could block 5 and lower by simply choosing to attend all of them (or more realistically all of the designated ones). Your proposal would make it significantly more difficult to climb the point standings, which in turn would make it significantly more difficult for somebody to dislodge those at the top. The proposal is thus a strong benefit for those currently at the top of the point standings, two of whom are your daughters and one of whom is a VP candidate on your slate. This is VERY CLEARLY a HUGE conflict of interest, and one which I'm confident everybody else can see even if you can't.

-m

[teacup]

Has anybody done a reasonable budget for a 2 day NAC tournament that accurately depicts the appropriate tradeoffs in cost and quality?

I would hope that this has been one of the options studied by the Tournament Task Force Committee over the last two years. Therefore shouldn't this analysis be available somewhere?

Another option is to make tournaments with men's and women's events of the same weapon on the same day. This would mean that single weapon coaches, refs, families and couples would only have to stay one or three days, instead of two or four days.

[T]

Actually, I was saying that all refs should be paid for - at least in part - by the fencers traveling. My concern with having 4 go for free is that #5 is really hit (and will get the evil eye from 1-4's parents/financiers).

T's (and notalent's) suggested approach (limiting or drastically increasing the cost for 5 and beyond) will stultify the top, reduce development of the next generation, and really be a bad idea. In essence, we stop funding our R&D because we can't manage our operations - a really bad idea.

You are missing the point. I wasn't referring to 4 go for free and #5 pay for the referee if they want to go. This is not a proposal to stop funding R&D, it is a proposal to shift the costs of it. Sure, parents can fund part of the extra bill (but I agree, if there is an extra bill, it needs to be shared by all going). However, the coach needs to be responsible for setting a calendar that reflects consideration of the cost of referees. Again, the proposal is not to limit the entries, per se -- it is to shift who is paying for the referees so that it is reflected in the weapons budget than in a category all by itself. FYI, for Grand Prix events, the USFA doesn't send referees and a max of 8 fencers can go from each country.

There are a number of ways to handle this. It can all come from the weapons budget without any contribution by the fencers; it can all come from the fencers that are attending the world cup; it can be some ratio of both. Whatever the decision, however, it needs to be accurately reflected as part of the weapons program (if fencers/parents are footing the bill, that will essentially just increase the weapon budget accordingly). In W.saber (at least with the Jrs), they charge a Manager fee for everyone going to world cup events. Everyone going to the world cup pays a fee for a manager to attend the world cup along with the fencers. This same idea could be applied to referees as well (or again, some % of the fee).

[fencerwallet]

T's (and notalent's) suggested approach (limiting or drastically increasing the cost for 5 and beyond) will stultify the top, reduce development of the next generation, and really be a bad idea. In essence, we stop funding our R&D because we can't manage our operations - a really bad idea.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[T]

As with other types of media, on this discussion board there seems to be a tendency for people to pick out parts of a sentence or proposal that don't reflect the complete thought or idea that was proposed or stated... But with the acknowledgement of the possible risk of being taken out of context, I will add a part 2 reply to KD5MDK's questions asked earlier in this thread.

5) Do you have an studies or evidence that reducing the size of National Tournaments would be more cost effective, as opposed to just reducing our economies of scale? Right now we concentrate of 4 day tournaments where shipping and airfare is amortized across 4 days. If we go with more frequent tournaments, our volunteers don't have the time to spend on tournaments of equal length, therefore they will have to be shortened to 3 or 2 day events, which doubles the cost/day of shipping and airfare.

There are not too many options to reduce economies of scale. I’m sure there are differences of opinions on this (so everyone feel free to chime in), we cannot get any bigger in the venues that we select without going to venues like the Astrodome or similar venue. By requiring venues to be able to accommodate 54 strips?, we already exceed the space limits of many convention centers. The larger we get, the more we reduce the potential venues. This restricted availability will mean higher venue fees (supply and demand).

My understanding (and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong) is that all tournament equipment is stored in one location (Idaho or Iowa or Wyoming or something?). If we adopted the 3-region approach (that we propose on our website which is not a qualifying procedure but simply a way to geographically divide the NACs) we could store the equipment in 3 different regions and shipping would be less.

In terms of referees (airfare), the events would require significantly fewer referees and could take advantage of refs that lived closer to the venue which would take advantage of refs driving to the event (and sharing a ride, perhaps) or flying on a regional carrier which has more frequent flights and would be short hops and usually cheaper.

6) If we limit entries for World Cups to 4 entries per tournament for most competitions, will fencers not currently in the top 4 or 5 points holders have a chance to advance? If the WC spots are always taken up by the current team members, the next fencers down have very restricted chances to move up the points list.

There are 14 world cup events in almost all weapons and age-groups (jr and sr). Most US JR weapons Designate 4 or 5 world cups where there is a maximum of 12 entries; Seniors Designated anywhere from 5 to 12. Some of these world cups have a Strength factor of 2.0 while others have a SF of .75 (or less). There can always be some way divide up which athletes have the right to attend which world cups HOWEVER, if there is a world cup where the National Coach feels that it is important not to restrict entries (ie, all 12 fencers should be eligible to attend), then the expense for the referee should come out of the weapons budget (2 refs will be required so about $3,000 total). There is always the option of having the 12 fencers (or however many go) pay their pro-rata share or perhaps part of it. The idea is that if the Weapons coaches are required to spend money from their budget on Referees attending world cup events, then they will be more thoughtful in their decisions as to which world cup athletes should attend, could attend, might attend, or anything in between. They will also be more diligent in being sure that the referee books travel well in advance to avoid last-minute expenses. The way the system currently operates, there is no incentive for the National coach to give this any thought.

One additional item that needs to be adjusted is the deadline for entry to world cups. Currently, deadlines for athletes to enter world cups are approx 30 days in advance; they must confirm (or decline) their entry within 21 days of the start date. This rule needs to be rigidly enforced so that referees know 20 days ahead of time that travel needs to be booked. In addition, those world cups that occur during times for which there is no domestic or international event between, need to have the same deadline so athletes and therefore, referees, will know and can confirm their attendance and book travel accordingly.

7) What % of the cost of travel do travel agent fees cost, and is it a significant savings to have everybody booking their own arrangements.

I don’t have data on this, however, as you stated, you use the travel agent to book your airfare and given the state of reimbursement, I suspect most other referees do as well. If the travel agent fees are similar to the ones charged for athletes, the fees are $30/ticket – which can be approx 10% of the ticket price. In 2006-07, that would be about $20,000.

Unfortunately, I have heard (granted, it is a rumor but it is from a very reliable source) that the USFA credit cards are maxed out and it isn’t going to be too easy for them to keep charging air fares for everyone. My understanding is that the USFA is currently unable to purchase airplane tickets with their credit cards for elite athletes going to Olympic-seeding events. If this is true, it will likely have a pretty big impact on the USFA’s ability to purchase airplane tickets for referees for the SNs.

[tchwojko]

Unfortunately, I have heard (granted, it is a rumor but it is from a very reliable source) that the USFA credit cards are maxed out and it isn’t going to be too easy for them to keep charging air fares for everyone. My understanding is that the USFA is currently unable to purchase airplane tickets with their credit cards for elite athletes going to Olympic-seeding events. If this is true, it will likely have a pretty big impact on the USFA’s ability to purchase airplane tickets for referees for the SNs.

How much is the USFA paying in interest on those credit cards? Is there no better source of loaned money?

[KD5MDK]

Referee tickets ought to be pretty much all booked, as we were told no travel arrangements would be approved after June 1.

[oiuyt]

T-

Any chance you (or Sharol) could answer the questions I asked (post #84)?

Wow.

Given that you've now actively entered the thread five times (for a total of six posts) since my question and specifically responded to the OTHER part of my follow-up request for comment, I'm beginning to think you might be avoiding answering my post (#84).

-B

[T]

Wow.

Given that you've now actively entered the thread five times (for a total of six posts) since my question and specifically responded to the OTHER part of my follow-up request for comment, I'm beginning to think you might be avoiding answering my post (#84).

-B

Don't worry Brad, a response is coming soon... you're not being ignored.

[oiuyt]

Don't worry Brad, a response is coming soon... you're not being ignored.

Thanks. I appreciate the status update. :)

-B