Bid packets are now available for the 2009-2010 Regional Open Circuit. I've attached a copy here, though the file should be posted on the USFA website any time now, too.
What on earth is this Regional Open Circuit, you ask?
It's what this season we called the National Open Circuit. We decided that "Regional" describes the circuit better and decided to go for the name change for the 2009-2010 season.
For the coming season, we're looking for four to six six-weapon tournaments to designate for the ROC, either established events or new ones. Bids may be submitted to the USFA national office until Friday, May 29. The tournaments designated as the 2009-2010 Regional Open Circuit will be announced in late June.
I'm planning to hold a couple of informal info sessions about the ROC and the bid process at the NAC in Portland, though since I'm also BC Chair I'll wait to decide the exact schedule for those until I know more about the NAC event schedule (numbers are up, apparently). The registration desk and the BC table will have the schedule there.
In the meantime, of course, I'm happy to answer questions generally or via PM.
Mary
Mary Griffith
Chair, *Regional* Open Circuit Advisory Group
1) non-refundable $100 bidding fee
2) fee of $5/fencer
3) paying for a ROC representative to fly out (from god knows where)... stay in a hotel ... and per diem
4) Filling out a bid sheet with 48 separate points
the tournament gets
1) promoted on the usfa website and magazine
2) top 4 auto-qualify to Div I-A
3) tournament awards ROC points
Maybe this is an acceptable tradeoff for jumpstarting attendance at a new tournament. I fail to see how established large tournaments benefit though.
So in exchange for
Maybe this is an acceptable tradeoff for jumpstarting attendance at a new tournament. I fail to see how established large tournaments benefit though.
1) non-refundable $100 bidding fee
2) fee of $5/fencer
3) paying for a ROC representative to fly out (from god knows where)... stay in a hotel ... and per diem
4) Filling out a bid sheet with 48 separate points
the tournament gets
1) promoted on the usfa website and magazine
2) top 4 auto-qualify to Div I-A
3) tournament awards ROC points
Maybe this is an acceptable tradeoff for jumpstarting attendance at a new tournament. I fail to see how established large tournaments benefit though.
Not every established tournament will be interested, of course. Based on the feedback we've had from this year's event organizers, though, many will decide the tradeoff is acceptable.
Among the benefits we're working on offering are resources to help tournament organizers--an operations manual for running a fairly large tournament, advice and assistance (non-monetary--our entire budget comes from those fees) for obtaining equipment and qualified officials, news release templates, etc. Even established tournaments want to improve their events to appeal to more competitors and increase local and regional awareness of the sport.
Oh, and as mentioned in the bid packet, we'll do our best to make the ROC observer a working official (usually either BC staff or referee), so that the organizer isn't paying out any more in expenses than would already be budgeted. It's to everybody's advantage that we see firsthand what works and what doesn't, so we can make informed recommendations to tournament organizers and informed judgements when we evaluate bids.
I've been working BC at national tournaments for almost ten years. During that period, USFA membership has nearly doubled. NACs that used to be 20 or 24 strips are now 40 or more, larger than Summer Nationals used to be, and SN now is 60 or more strips. We are reaching the limits of what we can do in terms of all of our current resources--personnel, equipment, facilities, and money.
But we've got all these fencers who want to fence and more of them all the time. We need to develop more strong well-run, well-staffed, well-equipped tournaments to serve that ever-growing population. That means we have to work at developing and credentialing more referees, more armorers, and more bout committee staff.
This circuit is a way of pushing that process--it's a chicken-and-egg proposition. We're trying to create demand and create the resources to fill that demand at the same time. Undoubtedly there will be bumps and obstacles, but we'll keep adjusting and tweaking and re-imagining the concept to make it work.
If you've got ideas to help make it work better, I'd be happy to hear them. (Just watch out--we might also be happy to put you to work on implementing those good ideas, too.)
It's what this season we called the National Open Circuit. We decided that "Regional" describes the circuit better and decided to go for the name change for the 2009-2010 season.
Not to mention that NOC already commonly refers to National Olympic Committee.
I really like this project, and think that with the right vision, planning, and implementation it might become the most important USFA program innovation since Summer Nationals.
My only thought, at the moment, is that you might want to consider more than 4-6 events in the inaugural effort. If someone has a solid bid, and the event is in a unserved market, then why not green light the event. If they screw it up, then hopefully it's a learning experience towards better future events, and in the worst case... sanctioning is removed for the sake of maintaining credibility of the program.
Just off the top of my head:
Boston, NY/NJ, Philadelphia, DC/Virginia, ATL/KY, Houston, Dallas-FW, Colorado, LA, Bay Area, Pacific NW, and Ohio... would all be perfect locations for a designated regional event.
I've been working BC at national tournaments for almost ten years. During that period, USFA membership has nearly doubled. NACs that used to be 20 or 24 strips are now 40 or more, larger than Summer Nationals used to be, and SN now is 60 or more strips. We are reaching the limits of what we can do in terms of all of our current resources--personnel, equipment, facilities, and money.
But we've got all these fencers who want to fence and more of them all the time. We need to develop more strong well-run, well-staffed, well-equipped tournaments to serve that ever-growing population. That means we have to work at developing and credentialing more referees, more armorers, and more bout committee staff.
This circuit is a way of pushing that process--it's a chicken-and-egg proposition. We're trying to create demand and create the resources to fill that demand at the same time. Undoubtedly there will be bumps and obstacles, but we'll keep adjusting and tweaking and re-imagining the concept to make it work.
If you've got ideas to help make it work better, I'd be happy to hear them. (Just watch out--we might also be happy to put you to work on implementing those good ideas, too.)
Mary
I think the question that people have is, why make a regional event into a ROC? If, as you say, there's a great demand for competitions (which is arguably true), why can't the prospective tournament organizer just run a non-ROC Regional event, much like the ones they're running now? They're well attended as it is, which to the tournament organizer, is really the bottom line.
So if a tournament organizer (TO) runs a non-ROC regional and gets 200 entries (say) versus running a ROC regional which also brings in 200 (because that's the most the TO can handle, perhaps), where's the benefit for the TO? In the latter case, he loses $100 off the top, then $1000 for the $5/head. In the former case, he doesn't.
In the former case, the TO doesn't necessarily need to meet specs. The tournament may or may not suffer (fencers are quite flexible in their requirements from TOs) in terms of quality. In the latter case, the TO has to meet specs, which may mean a larger venue, only rated referees, etc which costs more money.
My only thought, at the moment, is that you might want to consider more than 4-6 events in the inaugural effort. If someone has a solid bid, and the event is in a unserved market, then why not green light the event. If they screw it up, then hopefully it's a learning experience towards better future events, and in the worst case... sanctioning is removed for the sake of maintaining credibility of the program.
Just off the top of my head:
Boston, NY/NJ, Philadelphia, DC/Virginia, ATL/KY, Houston, Dallas-FW, Colorado, LA, Bay Area, Pacific NW, and Ohio... would all be perfect locations for a designated regional event.
That's 12.
Maybe it's 4-6 per section (on average), although in reality, 2 per section (on average) sounds about right.
If you've got ideas to help make it work better, I'd be happy to hear them. (Just watch out--we might also be happy to put you to work on implementing those good ideas, too.)
Has anyone figured out what the points are for?
(perhaps qual for SN in Div 1?)
If its a regional circuit does that mean each region will have multiple events? (otherwise its still a national circuit)
Has anyone considered adding U17, U20, V40, etc.?
Seems like the NOC/ROC might not add anything to an already quality event (like Cherry Blossom) except the Div 1A qualifying path. It might be worthwhile to look for some other value-added component to attract folks or to entice established (big) tournaments to be more interested. Can you look at these ROC's (is that John Mellancamp I hear singing in the background?) as a way to test ideas that may not be ready for prime-time (SN or NACs) but might generate some additional quality interest/attendance from the fencing community and perhaps even the media world?
Perhaps you can look at it like an incubator for innovative ideas where you try things out. For example, I can't remember the exact age, and can't find it by search, but some folks on f.net have been lamenting the deadzone for fencers that age out of U20 and don't have Div 1 points, are overqualified for Div. 2 or 3, or aren't in a Vet category as they are too young. Was it a U23 or U26 designation that folks mentioned? Some pointed out that tournaments in Europe and maybe Canada (?) where finding interest in a "tween" category like this.
Is this something that could be put in to the incubator of a designated ROC tournament to see if it might float? Would there be interest? If after seeing how it works in the ROCs it might (if successful) be elevated to one of the NACs as a logical growth, or stay delegated to ROCs to differentiate them from NACs and continue to build tournaments on the regional level.
Another idea might be to test a high school team concept where local high schools can enter teams in a tournament that has broader appeal than local tournaments and provide publicity to raise the awareness of a potential national high school championship. The ROCs could be the regional qualifiers for high school teams and a championship could be designated where the regional champions go to battle it out. You could link in some kind of referee training with it and require teams that sign-up to bring one "official" to get additional training and certification to help grow and improve the referees that are officiating in the local leagues.
I'm not for infinitely slicing competitive categories or coming up with different competitive scenarios unless they help to grow the sport in some real and long-term way. So I'm not sure how I really feel about these ideas, but I thought I'd float them to see if the more brilliant minds than mine on f.net can take the interesting concept of NOC/ROC and make it more useful and interesting to the established tournaments that may not see anything in the current bid proposal worth pursuing.
-------------------
"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."
Will Rogers
Has anyone figured out what the points are for?
(perhaps qual for SN in Div 1?)
If its a regional circuit does that mean each region will have multiple events? (otherwise its still a national circuit)
Has anyone considered adding U17, U20, V40, etc.?
Now there's an excellent question, and it's one we're working on figuring out an answer for. Right now the NOC points list is pretty silly--it's essentially a joint results list. What do the points mean? What should they mean? Should we weight events somehow, or should we go ahead and award the same number of points from an A2 and a C1? Should we use the points for qualification path purposes, and if so, how and for which events?
(One of the many things I've discovered since becoming chair of this committee is that the more you think about it, the more you have to think about it--an interesting puzzle, but definitely a puzzle, or perhaps more accurately, a series of interlocking puzzles.)
Now there's an excellent question, and it's one we're working on figuring out an answer for. Right now the NOC points list is pretty silly--it's essentially a joint results list. What do the points mean? What should they mean? Should we weight events somehow, or should we go ahead and award the same number of points from an A2 and a C1? Should we use the points for qualification path purposes, and if so, how and for which events?
(One of the many things I've discovered since becoming chair of this committee is that the more you think about it, the more you have to think about it--an interesting puzzle, but definitely a puzzle, or perhaps more accurately, a series of interlocking puzzles.)
Mary
Shouldn't some of these things be figured out before requiring $100 application fees and $5/fencer. Four qualifiers to Div IA is nice and all ... but isn't much of a carrot for the stronger regional competitions, where the top finishers are likely to qualify anyway or don't particularly care about Div IA since they're frequent point earners in Div I.
Shouldn't some of these things be figured out before requiring $100 application fees and $5/fencer. Four qualifiers to Div IA is nice and all ... but isn't much of a carrot for the stronger regional competitions, where the top finishers are likely to qualify anyway or don't particularly care about Div IA since they're frequent point earners in Div I.
Agreed.
This should be nailed firmly prior to opening the bid window.
It is not in the best interest of the USFA to be accepting bids on mystery grab-bags. This is an NGB we're talking about not an estate sale.
Shouldn't some of these things be figured out before requiring $100 application fees and $5/fencer.
In a perfect world, we should perhaps figure out all the details before we start anything, but would we then start at all? And it would be indeed be nice not to charge fees at all, but since we have no budget except what we earn from those fees, we must.
Originally Posted by bbower
Four qualifiers to Div IA is nice and all ... but isn't much of a carrot for the stronger regional competitions, where the top finishers are likely to qualify anyway or don't particularly care about Div IA since they're frequent point earners in Div I.
It's true that those qualifiers may not be much of a carrot, but there are other carrots. There are regional tournaments that are just getting started that would like the national publicity bump they'd get from a ROC designation. (There are, in fact, many fencers who've never heard of the Pomme de Terre or the Duel in the Desert.) Others will want the assistance in acquiring staff or equipment or doing local promotion.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe there are lots of fencers out there who don't care as much about qualification slots or points as they do about finding good competitive fencing experiences.
Ultimately, I see the ROC as a tournament incubator. Right now, perhaps, we need the established tournaments more than they need us (though I'm thrilled that events like the Duel are still interested in participating)--I see them as allowing us to provide examples, to say, "These are the kind of events we want to develop," and in effect, endorse any new tournaments we designate as of that same quality. If we do things right, we'll end up with a lot of good destination tournaments that can attract fencers on their own, and a way to showcase good new tournaments.
(And then, if we can do the same thing for vets and teams and Div 2/3s, we'll be well on our way to taking over the world.)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe there are lots of fencers out there who don't care as much about qualification slots or points as they do about finding good competitive fencing experiences.
I think a higher quality of competition is a desirable goal. Our area (NYC) has many top women's foilists, but they rarely if ever compete in local tournaments. At the very top end, I am not sure you can get them to participate; they are already spending almost every weekend at NACs and WCs. But for others they need an incentive: either a) an opportunity for real meaningful points, or b) high quality competition with quality facility and directing (the most common reason I hear for why they don't compete is not wanting to put their fate into the hands of the typical local director).
I think "b" would follow closely if "a" were true. Assuming (without any real research on my part) a Div1 NAC gave 200 pts for 32nd place, a ROC/NOC could give <200 pts for top 8 places. I would agree with the argument that previous NOCs were not strong enough to merit that reward, but the reward would draw in stronger competitors, which would draw in stronger competitors.
Meh, I don't get the name change. If the tournaments are all over the country, how is that a "regional" circuit?
The intent is to promote regional fencing rather than to create a system parallel to the NACs. We don't expect people will travel the country to hit every one of these, but we hope that some of the the nearly half of our competitive members who have never fenced in a national tournament and some of those who are not well-served by the current assortment of NACs will be attracted to ROC events within reasonable distances.
The problem may be more with the word "circuit"--perhaps we should think about calling them Regional Open Cups or Regional Open Challenges.
And to further confuse things, if in the near future we add veterans' or div 2/3 events to the mix, that "Open" bit won't be right, either.
Part of the problem of figuring all this out is that so much depends on what other parts of the USFA do: New classifications or ranking systems could make a points system obsolete or redundant. The elimination or replacement of divisions and/or sections could mean we'd have a specific new concept of "region" to contend with. A reconfiguration of the NACs and/or SN would mean we'd be looking at a whole new system of events and qualification paths.
I suspect we'll need to do more than tweak the name over the next few years.
Among the benefits we're working on offering are resources to help tournament organizers--an operations manual for running a fairly large tournament, advice and assistance (non-monetary--our entire budget comes from those fees) for obtaining equipment and qualified officials, news release templates, etc.
Shouldn't these things be available to ANY CLUB holding ANY USFA-sanctioned tournament right now? These sound like things that should come from just plain membership, unless I am missing something.
Originally Posted by bbower 
