2008-2009 Bay Cup schedule (preliminary)

[misha]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

If three or less then a grand pool. How does that sound?

The goal is to practice team events so to maximize fencing

I'd say 5 or less - grand pool.
Team match ~ 1 hour. 5 teams - 4 matches will be 4-5 hours of fencing.
Everyone gets to fence 4 * 3 bouts = 12 bouts if there are no substitution.

If more than 5 - make pools of 3-5 teams with half of the teams advancing "up" and half "down" to final pools.

If you put only DEs, GGFC will end up fencing EBFG in the finals all the time - no fun for other teams...


.

[misha]

I looked for "C or higher classification Mixed Epee" and it looks like
there are only 2 events: May 31 and June 14 of 2009

Is there a strike of something till then?


.

[FoilBlender]

I propose more SUMF and SCDEMF!

[wahrman]

Now you're talking. Except for the vets part.

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Well, EDEW isn't interested until there's a market. So we'll go it alone.

[edew]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Well, EDEW isn't interested until there's a market. So we'll go it alone. I think that once the BayCup and Divisions schedules are finalized we'll look for a date and ask for sanctioning. The Divisions aren't limited to just the BayCup. Any club can sponsor a sanctioned tournament as long as it doesn't collide in dates with a previously scheduled (i.e. BayCup event). Of course classifications can't be awarded. But lets see if we can get some interest. Probably start with the VETS on a Sunday afternoon? Old guys are more open to innovation than the pups.
Make it open to any group of three or more epeeists? Club affiliations not an issue. What about mixed? Costs I'd put it up as the same as any tournament per fencer and no Bay Cup charges. If there are more than three teams direct DE's with reprecharge? If three or less then a grand pool. How does that sound?

It's not so much as a market but rather a well-developed process that makes sense.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by mfp

That may be a rule for event sanctioning in your division, but it ain't one in CenCal. There are no "protected" events or dates on the CenCal calendar.

Yes it is a rule in NorCal and I would opine a very good one. It keeps larger clubs from trampling all over smaller clubs when it comes to scheduling tournaments. And is one of the reasons why the BayCup has been so successful. Consider what it would be like if your club scheduled a tournament and then a larger club or group of clubs in NorCal came along after your arrangements were made and scheduled a larger event of the same nature (weapon/sex/ages). Under most circumstances you wouldn't get the attendance, quite likely you wouldn't make the minimum numbers needed to award classifications, etc. And don't even try to say it wouldn't happen. From what I've heard on f.net it does.

Originally Posted by mfp

But then what really is the point of a getting a team event sanctioned by a division in the first place?
What does it add, if anything?

It is true that for team events we can't award classifications. But for tournaments in general, and I'm open to correction here, I believe it assures insurance coverage through the USFA policies, thus providing protection for the Club, its owner, and coaches. In-club tournaments/assaults/bouting are always covered. But with non-club members in attendance sanctioning at least implies that USFA regulations/standards are adhered to.

[rdg]

1. I think having some vet team events (besides drinking, but which might include drinking) would be great. There are enough of us in the bay cup to make it work, but maybe not enough to be formal, as in offical BayCup events. Maybe an adventerous club could put on said event. I'll bet I could get a couple of Cardinal Fencers to come.

2. I would like to see the BayCup epee move from C+ to D+. The last couple of events we have had less than 25 fencers, so I think being a little more inclusive would be good. Plus I need a little competition for DFL, and the D's need wider venue to move up.

Finally, it was another excellent season for the BayCup. My thanks to all of you who made these events possible, from our lowly weblacky to our esteemed directors. Thanks one and all.

Sam

[wwalkerjr]

Originally Posted by rdg

Plus I need a little competition for DFL, and the D's need wider venue to move up.

Sam

Sam, what makes you think that just by adding a few D rated fencers you will avoid winning DFL? A bad day is a bad day.

Best regards,

Bill

[rdg]

You are so right. No, really the point is that the C+ are a little short of having A2 events, and the D's have a difficult time advancing in the D and below because only one is going to get a C per event and then only if the have enough fencers.

EDEW and others need to balance the number of people: I am suggesting that in epee c+, we could use a few more, so opening up the event to D's would be helpful all around.

CU in the gym.

Sam

[edew]

We used to run a "category-2" event where the qualification is an old C or lower. (Old means two years old or older.) So, we can do a category-1 where the minimum requirement is a D08 or D09.

[evaluna]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Yes it is a rule in NorCal and I would opine a very good one. It keeps larger clubs from trampling all over smaller clubs when it comes to scheduling tournaments.

Is it an actual rule in the bylaws? Or something that has been done as a courtesy?

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by evaluna

Is it an actual rule in the bylaws? Or something that has been done as a courtesy?

I don't remember it being in the by-laws. It existed before my term as Division Chair. What is the proper term for a motion made and carried within the executive board? I believe it was Bill Cracraft who brought it up during a discussion of whether to sanction an particular event. So I suspect it comes from the time of Eric or Bill's tenure as Division Chair.

[edew]

Obviously it's not in the by-laws. By-laws explain how the organization organizes itself (how elections are made, how people replace others when there's a vacancy or resignation in an office, how votes are counted, etc.)

It could be in an operations manual for the division, which it isn't because the division doesn't have an operations manual.

It is a courtesy that the division extends to the Bay Cup, as a request by the Bay Cup.

Remember, the whole point of the Bay Cup had been to create a schedule that can be used by the three member divisions so that there's no conflicts. The reason it is needed and it is uniquely needed is that these three divisions are so geographically close to each other. (One might argue that the SoCal/Orange Coast/San Bernadino divisions also have such a case, but I think that even just SoCal division alone may span a larger area than most of the tri-divisional area of NorCal/CenCal/MtVal divisions. Remember that we used to use the 75 mile radius rule -- from Oakland City Hall -- as a way to gauge whether a fencer is within the "Bay Cup" region or not for determining the Bay Cup registration fee.)

It was an agreement borne out of an agreement among clubs in the two main divisions (NorCal and CenCal) to avoid having division sanctioned events scheduled on top of each other. If this agreement is breached by having clubs or divisions scheduling events on top of Bay Cup events (and dates allocated to division-specific qualifiers), then we don't have a Bay Cup. So the courtesy that the division extends is necessary.

At the beginning of every season, I (or someone) propose a motion that the division (NorCal) accepts the Bay Cup schedule for events held in the division and promises not to sanction events that conflict with the Bay Cup schedule. That is (or should be) done in Mountain Valley as well as Central Cal division. It should also then be adhered to.

[mfp]

Originally Posted by edew

At the beginning of every season, I (or someone) propose a motion that the division (NorCal) accepts the Bay Cup schedule for events held in the division and promises not to sanction events that conflict with the Bay Cup schedule. That is (or should be) done in Mountain Valley as well as Central Cal division. It should also then be adhered to.

As has been explained numerous times to those involved in the BayCup, there currently is no such promise of "protection" in/from CenCal. The motion made and approved at the CenCal annual meeting has been to support and sanction any and all events within the division that "follow USFA rules and standards".

The presumption / promise is that events in the division will be sanctioned unless the event is seriously screwed up in its execution.

If clubs within the division wish to host "Bay Cup" events, that's great and they'll be sanctioned. If clubs want to run other events , that's fine, those events will be sanctioned too. It doesn't matter if anyone thinks they might conflict with a BayCup, PCS, NAC, qualifier, SATs, another club's event, high or bank holiday or whatever.

While hosts in the division have usually sensibly steered away from scheduling events that "conflict", that's been their choice, not a division requirement.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by mfp

As has been explained numerous times to those involved in the BayCup,...

Mike aren't you one of those involvees?

Originally Posted by mfp

While hosts in the division have usually sensibly steered away from scheduling events that "conflict", that's been their choice, not a division requirement.

Ok, that's cool.

[edew]

The Bay Cup assumes an agreement, made after pleading with the divisions at their annual division meeting, to not schedule overlapping events. If such a request is too burdensome, I'm more than happy to not continue the Bay Cup. I'll finish this season with the prizes, hold the remaining money in the account for whenever a new plan is devised, and let the divisions schedule their own events. Use the preliminary schedule as a template if you wish.

The Bay Cup is nothing if there is no agreement.

[rdg]

So, we can do a category-1 where the minimum requirement is a D08 or D09

I think that would be good all around. It keeps the fencing quality up, and gets a few more interested parties.

Originally Posted by edew

The Bay Cup assumes an agreement, made after pleading with the divisions at their annual division meeting, to not schedule overlapping events. If such a request is too burdensome, I'm more than happy to not continue the Bay Cup. I'll finish this season with the prizes, hold the remaining money in the account for whenever a new plan is devised, and let the divisions schedule their own events.

Way too easy, my friend. Back to the negociating table.

This "pleading" and a subsequent "let the divisions schedule their own events" is exactly why other areas can't get something like the BayCup going. I know this why Skopik is so frustrated in Gulf Coast, where his division really seems to get in the way ...truely that is only one point of view ... but the reality is that they can't get a Cup or event get a rigorous fencing schedule going in spite of having enough fencers and interest.

So far, from a distance, it looks like our division is sympathetic, and I hope they continue to be. This cup is way more work than I would have expected.

Now, when do we get our prizes?

Sam

[edew]

Prizes will come, sometime after Nationals. We've all got a lot on our plates at the moment.

[mfp]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Mike aren't you one of those involvees?

Of course -- with both the Bay Cup and one of the divisions.

There has been some confusion about whether CenCal has agreed to somehow "protect" Bay Cup (or any events). There is no such agreement.

Some have stated the Bay Cup could not possibly function without such an agreement from CenCal. That's obviously untrue since there is no "protection agreement" from CenCal and yet the Bay Cup has functioned and quite well.

Pushing for CenCal to consider blocking others from various dates likely would not be to anyone's advantage, especially the Bay Cup's. If there were "protected" dates or events in the division for the Bay Cup, then other hosts have indicated they would seek the same.

It's pretty clear Bay Cup scheduling then would become even more complicated. Strangely, it would bring to a head many of the issues and problems the Bay Cup was seeking to avoid in the first place. In the end, the Bay Cup would probably make out worse, not better. It's a sleeping dog better left unkicked.

So instead of instigating some sort of mad calendar land rush, one where the Bay Cup would lose out compared to now, the division is committed to treating all events fairly w.r.t. sanctioning. While hosts retain the right to run any events they wish and get sanctioning -- even events that others might think "conflict" -- event hosts have generally and sensibly taken other scheduled events into consideration.

This has calmed folks down since if they want to host an event, they can. It also keeps the Division officers out of what are the hosts' business decisions. Clubs know it won't involve the sort of unpleasantness such as seen up north or in other divisions where reps from competing clubs have invented reasons for denying sanctioning.

[needle]

Originally Posted by edew

Prizes will come, sometime after Nationals. We've all got a lot on our plates at the moment.

Darn, I was hoping to spend some of that, shopping at the Nationals. Oh well ...