2009-2010 ROC Update

[Allen Evans]

Ah, ok... I though there are already separate events. And who are the CB organizers exactly? I know one of them, but not sure who the rest are... Also, lets not forget there is the Amazon for the ladies, the last one was very strong...

The "men's" events are really "mixed" events, since women are allowed to fence in them, in addition to the seperate women's events. I beleive that the ROC criteria is that the events are completely seperate.

The CB, I believe is organized by the Capital Division, and run by the U of Maryland club. I'm not sure of this, however.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the Amazon? That it should be a Regional Circuit? If I recall, it has no men's events.

[ivlobane]

Well, if a requirement is to have separate men and women's events, they do not all have to be on the same day, right? So why not have gender+weapon specific events?

...and to someone else: yes, a US Div1NAC is a world class event because usually there are more than a few competitors with either current or past FIE points.

[downunder]

...and to someone else: yes, a US Div1NAC is a world class event because usually there are more than a few competitors with either current or past FIE points.

That doesn't make it world class, that makes it fairly strong from maybe about the last 8.

World class would be Heidenheim for Men's Epee and Paris for Men's Foil.

[ivlobane]

That doesn't make it world class, that makes it fairly strong from maybe about the last 8.

World class would be Heidenheim for Men's Epee and Paris for Men's Foil.

Wow, high standards there, mister. So world class are Grand-Prix events only? Not in agreement with you at all. Satellite world cups not world class? Pan Am, University games not world class? Pretty sure that if compared FIE point totals, a NAC can compete with some world cups.

[piste off]

Another thing I have reservations about is the incentive to fence the ROC.

Agree totally, which is why some other things need to happen to make these successful.

The incentive to qualify for Div 1As will draw in some quality level fencers. That will bring other high level fencers. Others will follow, but perhaps even more has to happen to make the event attractive (marketing etc.). If you knew that the event was going to be an A4 you might be more willing to drive the trek.

Why aren’t they A4s yet (e.g. Jeff Wolfe, Danny Bukantz)? Because either people don’t know about them (did not exist before, yada yada) or they are monitoring AskFred and don’t want to commit to a tournament that looks like it will not be worth the effort. In my experience, once the quality fencers start signing the numbers follow, and I’ve seen a tournament go from 20-30 people signed up to over 70 (A4) driven by a few emails and calls. I think the Div 1A incentive is just enough spark to start things rolling, and these events can eventually turn into CBO/PDT type draws.

Can you imagine 3-4 additional tournaments like the CBO and PDT in the DC to Boston corridor per year? Would that get you out of bed and willing to drive? I can see that happening.

R-

P.S. I do realize that I am thinking less about the purpose of the ROCs and more about what I think they can add to the U.S. fencing scene. Perhaps the immediate incentive (Div 1A qualification) is merely a catalyst that can be exploited.

[NGV]

The Regional Open Circuit is intended to increase competitive opportunities for Division I-A and developing recreational fencers by recognizing and promoting strong regional tournaments. The top 10% (with a minimum of 4) of finishers in each event qualify for the Division I-A Championship at Summer Nationals.

Has there been any consideration of giving a small number of actual national points to the first-place finisher at an ROC? It seems like that could boost the perceived prestige and appeal of the tournaments considerably, and more effectively distinguish them from other strong regional competitions.

I'm not familiar with the logic behind the proposed ROC structure, but my inclination would be to eventually move toward something comparable to the FIE's division between satellite world cups and regular world cups. That seems more logical than a having a separate "Division I-A" circuit with meaningless point standings of its own.

[pillow]

Has there been any consideration of giving a small number of actual national points to the first-place finisher at an ROC? It seems like that could boost the perceived prestige and appeal of the tournaments considerably, and more effectively distinguish them from other strong regional competitions.

I'm not familiar with the logic behind the proposed ROC structure, but my inclination would be to eventually move toward something comparable to the FIE's division between satellite world cups and regular world cups. That seems more logical than a having a separate "Division I-A" circuit with meaningless point standings of its own.

Not a bad idea. Most serious Div I fencers don't give a **** about Div IA, and are not about to stay to the end of the SN anyway. You could give some real national points like the SYC events do for the kids. The analogy is the same--ROCs are high level regional events which could yield some Div I points, not Div IA, just like SYCs are high level regional events that give national points to youth fencers.

[teacup]

Div I points could be awarded for ROC's, calculated with strength factors based on a formula similar to that used for international senior and junior world cups, but substituting fencers ranked domestically and internationally.

[ivlobane]

Not a bad idea. Most serious Div I fencers don't give a **** about Div IA, and are not about to stay to the end of the SN anyway. You could give some real national points like the SYC events do for the kids. The analogy is the same--ROCs are high level regional events which could yield some Div I points, not Div IA, just like SYCs are high level regional events that give national points to youth fencers.

Yep, basically a trickle-up effect of meaningful, national points. The point standings then would qualify you to higher-level events. I'm completely against making a separate meaningless circuit that has no connection to making the US team and further aspirations.
When a kid comes to his first events, I want them to see a clear path from where they are to the medal podium at the World Championships. I also hate to try explain why there are two Nationals, one Nationals "lite" and one "real"...

[piste off]

Yep, basically a trickle-up effect of meaningful, national points. The point standings then would qualify you to higher-level events. I'm completely against making a separate meaningless circuit that has no connection to making the US team and further aspirations.
When a kid comes to his first events, I want them to see a clear path from where they are to the medal podium at the World Championships. I also hate to try explain why there are two Nationals, one Nationals "lite" and one "real"...

I'm pretty sure that that concept of national points was considered (going off memory of a convsation I had with one of the national TC guys) but that they did not want to go that route as it might benefit the guy with the deepest pockets.

There still might be a way of tying the ROCs with national points without going to a full point system for the circuit (that would imply the need to go to multiple events) such as any finalist gets to qualify for DIV1 Nationals or your best finish gets you points.

Anyway ivlobane, I think we will always have real and "lite" nationals and even two other divisions (II and III) below that.

R-

[pillow]

I'm pretty sure that that concept of national points was considered (going off memory of a convsation I had with one of the national TC guys) but that they did not want to go that route as it might benefit the guy with the deepest pockets.

There still might be a way of tying the ROCs with national points without going to a full point system for the circuit (that would imply the need to go to multiple events) such as any finalist gets to qualify for DIV1 Nationals or your best finish gets you points.

Anyway ivlobane, I think we will always have real and "lite" nationals and even two other divisions (II and III) below that.

R-

Really good logic on the part of the TC. I was sure that the ability to travel to every NAC and to go to World Cups and buy points required deep pockets, but I guess I was wrong.

[teacup]

I'm pretty sure that that concept of national points was considered (going off memory of a convsation I had with one of the national TC guys) but that they did not want to go that route as it might benefit the guy with the deepest pockets.

To echo Pillow's comment: Traveling regionally would require deeper pockets than traveling nationally and internationally???????

And do they want Div I Men's Epee national events to be over 300 fencers?

[CvilleFencer]

Seems to me if you wanted to boost attendance of these events and encourage strong events to make changes to meet the ROC requirements, the USFA would just say that all ROC events are A3 or A4 tourneys at minimum. Do that and you will have high numbers and strong fencers coming out. And it might even be worth something to divisions or clubs as it would provide some actual developmental benefit (reputation wise) for the club/division.

[ivlobane]

I'm pretty sure that that concept of national points was considered (going off memory of a convsation I had with one of the national TC guys) but that they did not want to go that route as it might benefit the guy with the deepest pockets.

There still might be a way of tying the ROCs with national points without going to a full point system for the circuit (that would imply the need to go to multiple events) such as any finalist gets to qualify for DIV1 Nationals or your best finish gets you points.

Anyway ivlobane, I think we will always have real and "lite" nationals and even two other divisions (II and III) below that.

R-

The deeper pockets logic does not compute at all for me. The reverse is true: it could lessen the advantage of those who can afford to travel nationally/internationally a lot. I agree, there always were and should be Div2/3, 1A, ect competitions. But why must they be completely disconnected from Div1?

[eac]

I could imagine in a potentially close race for a team, where the difference is 150 points or less, the deeper-pocketed competitor could decide to travel all over the country in the weekends they aren't traveling all over the world, winning every ROC, and making the team for that reason. That would be bad.

[fdad]

I could imagine in a potentially close race for a team, where the difference is 150 points or less, the deeper-pocketed competitor could decide to travel all over the country in the weekends they aren't traveling all over the world, winning every ROC, and making the team for that reason. That would be bad.

The number of points earning events is capped. It's unlikely anyone nearing the top 4 on the points list would not have more points from other events. Also, the scenario you describe already exists, but requires deep enough pockets for international travel.

[piste off]

To echo Pillow's comment: Traveling regionally would require deeper pockets than traveling nationally and internationally???????

And do they want Div I Men's Epee national events to be over 300 fencers?

Of course the current national and international requirements require deep pockets. You don't want to add to that by lumping on regionals.

The tie-in idea should be more about development than an alternative way of getting points. That should not be the goal of the ROCs, other than perhaps a limited/nominal amount that would only be significant to tie the top performers at ROCs with the DIV1 event. I think this this could be done without a point system, such as the top X at any ROC gets into DIV1 nats.

I don't see how the above would create 300 fencers at DIV1s.

R-

[piste off]

The deeper pockets logic does not compute at all for me. The reverse is true: it could lessen the advantage of those who can afford to travel nationally/internationally a lot.

The intent of ROCs is not to create an alternatve to get points. That is why considering getting points (at least at a significant level) is a bad idea, as it would create more financial burden.

I don't think there is any alternative for those that can't affort to travel nationally/internationally and have designs on making teams - but ROCs are totally not an answer.

R-

[pillow]

The intent of ROCs is not to create an alternatve to get points. That is why considering getting points (at least at a significant level) is a bad idea, as it would create more financial burden.

I don't think there is any alternative for those that can't affort to travel nationally/internationally and have designs on making teams - but ROCs are totally not an answer.

R-

I think the suggestion was that awarding of "real" (not DIV IA entry) points would make it more likely that high level fencers would attend ROCs. I agree totally that points are not the reason to have ROCs.

[Inquartata]

I wonder whether this

The top 10% (with a minimum of 4) of finishers in each event qualify for the Division I-A Championship at Summer Nationals.

in combination with this

eventually sectionals will be gone.

Will produce the effect of reducing the size of Div 1-A at Nationals rather drastically ( at least until such time as the ROCs are as PO expects increased in number )?

I mean, for sabre 8 ROCs times 4 qualifiers each yields a Div 1-A qualification field of just 32 fencers...maybe 45, if all of the other current paths are kept. That's substantially smaller than this year's field.

Even for the 100-man epee NOCs that PO envisions, that's what? 93 total for Div 1-A at Nationals?

I'm sure, of course, that that's not the intent, no, no.

Sorry?

Be nice to the myopic, there, my friend.

Wow, high standards there, mister. So world class are Grand-Prix events only? Not in agreement with you at all. Satellite world cups not world class? Pan Am, University games not world class? Pretty sure that if compared FIE point totals, a NAC can compete with some world cups.

Eh, when Jason Rogers, an Olympian, wins a Div 1 NAC but can't break out of the 32 at a Grand Prix, then maybe one can conclude with some justification that no, NACs are not really "world class".