Results Reporting -- A Suggestion

[ysbadadden]

It's nice to know what division the fencers are from -- but it would be more useful for a lot of us if we knew their club and coach. What stands in the way of reporting this?

[KD5MDK]

Among other things, NCAA regulations.

[Mr Epee]

Among other things, NCAA regulations.

So if it isn't recorded, then it didn't happen?

Reporting the results with club affiliation is a very good idea.

It's valuable information.

[telkanuru]

If we didn't use Xseed, wouldn't all that information be in the results report automatically?


Why do we still use XSeed?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

If we didn't use Xseed, wouldn't all that information be in the results report automatically?


Why do we still use XSeed?

Well, club probably would be. Or, at least, it would be as long as people were representing a club.

But coach hasn't been part of any results I've seen. I'm sure that if En Garde doesn't do it automatically, it could do it. But that would require inputting it for... everyone. And it changes a lot. And isn't the whole story. And could be intensely political.

While it would maybe be kind of useful (depending on how accurate it is), there are plenty of reasons it wouldn't be accurate. High School and College fencers might have particular problems with that.

[KD5MDK]

The only time that athlete coach information is collected is on the Athlete Bio Forms for the top 8. Given how many of them list 2, 3, 4 coaches, I'm not sure how practical it is to organize that sort of information.

[dberke]

If we didn't use Xseed, wouldn't all that information be in the results report automatically?


Why do we still use XSeed?

Because I'm not quite finished with the changes the USFA needs before they can adopt Fencing Time... I'm working on it, though!

Dan

[ysbadadden]

Among other things, NCAA regulations.

Can you explain?

[oiuyt]

Can you explain?

The NCAA puts rather strict limitations on student-athletes representing outside teams/clubs/organizations. Which vary depending on when during the year (in- or out-of-season) and academic calendars (which, of course, vary school-to-school and year-to-year).

Trying to ensure that all such SA's are correctly listed at all times (during the course of the season a SA may be listed as unattached, representing his/her academic institution, and representing his/her club in different events and must switch between the three states at different times to remain in compliance with both NCAA and USFA regulations/policies) would be difficult and require significant overhead, while posing a non-trivial risk of substantial harm to the SA if/when something is erroneously entered (or not entered), either by the SA or by the USFA staff.

The USFA has decided, at least for now, to sidestep the issue(s) by not listing club affiliations/representations on results reporting.

-B

[jellybean]

Club affiliations are listed (for the most part) in the pdf versions of the files that go up within a week or so of the competition.

[KD5MDK]

oiuyt beat me to it, but I'll go ahead with the post I was composing while he did:

Fencers are not allowed to represent anybody but their school during the season. (NCAA rule)

Some fencers are allowed to represent other clubs outside the season by their teams, others are not.

It's too much of a burden for the USFA to keep track of which fencers NCAA policies apply to and when, and which do not. If a fencer is displayed as representing a club when they shouldn't be, they could lose their NCAA eligability, scholarship, etc. At the same time, fencers want to avoid fencing their teammates, and I think they should be separated to prevent opportunities for collusion. So we want to keep track of which clubs they are affiliated with.

Therefore, rather than trying to keep track of who is covered by NCAA and who isn't, we just don't list club affiliation for anyone publically, except for when we post the members of teams. Which only compete at Summer Nationals, which is always outside the NCAA season.

Personally, I think this is a case of the USFA being far too influenced by the NCAA, and by the NCAA people who are prominent in the USFA, but there is a reason behind it all.

[Guymelef]

A reason, yes, but not a very good one given the nature of fencing.

[telkanuru]

Because I'm not quite finished with the changes the USFA needs before they can adopt Fencing Time... I'm working on it, though!

Dan

Zomg. Can we get a timeframe?

[KD5MDK]

Did you read the Nominees Technology Plan? It's in there.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

The USFA has decided, at least for now, to sidestep the issue(s) by not listing club affiliations/representations on results reporting.

Therefore, rather than trying to keep track of who is covered by NCAA and who isn't, we just don't list club affiliation for anyone publically, except for when we post the members of teams. Which only compete at Summer Nationals, which is always outside the NCAA season.

Except that it's not actually true, which surprised the heck out of me, because

Club affiliations are listed (for the most part) in the pdf versions of the files that go up within a week or so of the competition.

really is true.

So while NCAA fencers have always had to be careful about affiliations.... perhaps they need to be more careful than they thought?

[telkanuru]

Did you read the Nominees Technology Plan? It's in there.

That's their timeframe. I was asking for his.

[KD5MDK]

Did you look at who wrote that document?

[telkanuru]

Why would I do something useful like that?

[dberke]

Zomg. Can we get a timeframe?

It's hard to say... there are a number of features requested by the USFA that must be added, while others would just be nice. Exactly which features must be implemented before adoption is currently unclear.

Once the new administration is settled in and a new chair is appointed to the tournament committee, I plan on working with them to prioritize the feature requests and decide on a timeframe for delivery.

In the meantime, I am currently working on adding features that I know are high-priority. For example, much of the code needed to track referee usage and maintain the referee database is already done.

If I had to take a guess, I would say that it's possible to begin the transition to FT around the start of the 2009-2010 season (i.e. a year from now.) I wouldn't be surprised if we did some more trial runs of FT at NACs next season to try out some of the new features that are in development.

Dan

[telkanuru]

May I ask for specifics on what's being added?