2009-2010 ROC Update

[piste off]

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.

Got it.

I think there are some other things that can get other top fencers (i.e. top 30 or so) to these comps. I'm pretty sure that for the 3 comps in our area that I can get at least a half-dozen of them in my weapon simply by asking (and maybe volunteering to arrange transportation).

I wonder if that will make the events more attractive or less to most people? To me, much more, and I am probably not alone. I think that will drive the numbers.

It would probably be better if the organizers can think of some additional “enticements” (hint – it is amazing how gaga they go over BF FIE blades).

R-

[Jason]

Just cause we didnt have A4s and 100 people doesnt mean this event was not a success.

What an unnecessarily defensive post.
I never suggested that your event wasn't successful. I sent a few of my kids there and they had fun.

However, if the point of the ROC is to... I don't know, actually... let's say expand non-NAC fencing opportunities, the event at Mission (while enjoyable--though you really need to regularly clean those bathrooms... they were horrifying) did little to achieve that goal.

And, in fact, it is unclear to me how labeling currently successful events as "ROC" or "NOC" or whatever does anything to further what those events were already doing: providing good non-NAC fencing opportunities.

[fencer92]

I noticed with interest that the Jeff Wolfe ROC date has been changed this year. I know that last year it was held on SAT weekend and it did have a impact on attendance by Cadet and Jr. fencers. While neither this tournament nor the New Jersey ROC truly qualify for the Southeast as Regional, it does make it a little easier to attend.

Fencer's Mom

[BrodeurNJD30]

What an unnecessarily defensive post.
.

Why are you unnecessarily negative?

-Dennis

[Jason]

Why are you unnecessarily negative?

-Dennis

You're reading defensively. Relax. I am not putting down your event. I'm questioning the purpose and function of the ROC system.

[seak]

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.

Cherry Blossom is organized by Cap Div and hosted at the Univ of Md. The mixed vs seperate event was one reason against becoming a ROC but not the main one this year.

The single biggest reason that CBO did not even bother to put in a bid is becuase Capitol Div wont even appoint someone to be in charge until this month at the earliest, and the Univ of MD fencing team can't even put in for dates until August. The bid packet was due in May.

Given the logistics it was not even discussed. My guess is if the logistics had been different it would have been a discussion.

[BrodeurNJD30]

You're reading defensively. Relax. I am not putting down your event. I'm questioning the purpose and function of the ROC system.

Thats very nice of you, can you do that without putting down my club?

[Jason]

Thats very nice of you, can you do that without putting down my club?

There is no reason to be so insecure. No one put down your club. Toughen up.

[piste off]

And, in fact, it is unclear to me how labeling currently successful events as "ROC" or "NOC" or whatever does anything to further what those events were already doing: providing good non-NAC fencing opportunities.

I agree completely, which is why I'd rather see the focus on new events or ones that are established but perhaps small in scope currently.

There is no reason to take very successful comps (e.g. CBO and PDT in east) and make them ROCs. Why? They are great as is, don't screw with them.

How are we going to take a currently non-existent or smaller event and turn it into something big?

By being innovative (e.g. don't expect to charge $65 and then only give a cheap medal to the top 8) and using our networks to build it (don't expect to just add a comp with the promise of the top 10% qualifying for DIV1As at nats and expect everyone to flock).

The organizers can help with the first. We can all help with the second.

The goal should be for us collectively to build these events. Not just expect the success to happen without those ingredients above.

[dekko]

Dumb question here, and yes I likely missed it, is D1A the only national qualification here? No D2 or D3 opportunities? If not, has this been considered?

[fdad]

Dumb question here, and yes I likely missed it, is D1A the only national qualification here? No D2 or D3 opportunities? If not, has this been considered?

According to the 2008 Athlete Handbook, qualifying for D1A ripples down to D2 and D3, assuming you are ratings eligible.

[piste off]

According to the 2008 Athlete Handbook, qualifying for D1A ripples down to D2 and D3, assuming you are ratings eligible.

Doing something like the top (or top X) C's (Div II) and D's/below (Div III) qualify might be a killer idea. That would really drive the numbers.

R-

[Jason]

How are we going to take a currently non-existent or smaller event and turn it into something big?

We?
This really falls under the purview of the hosting clubs. While the USFA certainly could make some resources available and be of some help, since these large events are a business opportunity for the hosting club, the responsibility for their success really lies with the club itself.

The thing that seems to always get overlooked in these ROC/NOC discussions is the fact that the number of large non-NAC competitions has already been continuously expanding for the past few years--without any help from the USFA.

What is necessary for that expansion to accelerate (and reach out to "under-served" areas)? An increase in demand.

How do you increase demand? Increase the number of fencers.

How do you increase the number of fencers? Increase the number of capable clubs in the appropriate markets (of which there are many in the US).

How do you increase the number of capable clubs? Increase the number of people who believe that they can (and understand how to) make a good living in the fencing business.

This is primarily a bottom-up "problem" (although I'm not sure I accept that there is any actual problem--at least not one that a little time won't resolve. The number of fencers and clubs is steadily increasing. The USFA has bigger problems than expanding the number of mid-level competitions). There is no need to apply a top-down solution.

[pillow]

We?
This really falls under the purview of the hosting clubs. While the USFA certainly could make some resources available and be of some help, since these large events are a business opportunity for the hosting club, the responsibility for their success really lies with the club itself.

The thing that seems to always get overlooked in these ROC/NOC discussions is the fact that the number of large non-NAC competitions has already been continuously expanding for the past few years--without any help from the USFA.

What is necessary for that expansion to accelerate (and reach out to "under-served" areas)? An increase in demand.

How do you increase demand? Increase the number of fencers.

How do you increase the number of fencers? Increase the number of capable clubs in the appropriate markets (of which there are many in the US).

How do you increase the number of capable clubs? Increase the number of people who believe that they can (and understand how to) make a good living in the fencing business.

This is primarily a bottom-up "problem" (although I'm not sure I accept that there is any actual problem--at least not one that a little time won't resolve. The number of fencers and clubs is steadily increasing. The USFA has bigger problems than expanding the number of mid-level competitions). There is no need to apply a top-down solution.

This is totally correct in my view as well. The big regional events, such as the Pomme, Mr. Ma, Cherry, etc, need no designation as a ROC to do well.
No serious highly ranked Junior or Senior fencer is going to travel to a ROC outside a reasonable driving distance for the prize of just Div IA entry that is meaningless. ROCs are called Regional events for a reason. The idea being to expand higher-level fencing on a regional basis. As Jason's post says, this is really the job of the local clubs to promote.

Now of course, I am leaving out the other shoe, which has yet to drop. That would be the eventual regionalization of the USFA, with elimination of Sections and maybe Divisions, and the eventual requirement of a "Regional" ranking in order to gain entry into any NAC. Will this happen in our lifetimes?

[KD5MDK]

Yes.

Do you have a different plan for the future?

[pillow]

Yes.

Do you have a different plan for the future?

I know the plan. I'm just wondering if the USFA can make it work without destroying itself.

[Jason]

Has this become an actual plan or is it still more like a vague idea?

[piste off]

We?
This really falls under the purview of the hosting clubs. While the USFA certainly could make some resources available and be of some help, since these large events are a business opportunity for the hosting club, the responsibility for their success really lies with the club itself.

The thing that seems to always get overlooked in these ROC/NOC discussions is the fact that the number of large non-NAC competitions has already been continuously expanding for the past few years--without any help from the USFA.

I don't think that last statement is valid. For example, what large events do you see in the NY area (with perhaps the largest concentration of fencers in the US) and how has this been expanding? To be clear, I am defining large non-NACs to be of the quality/size of the CBO or PDT. And if you are correct, then it is not happening fast enough IMO.

Regarding "we", since I am viewing it through a difference lens (specifically opportunity for the fencers as opposed to opportunity for the local club to make some extra coin) then I think we (the fencing community) do have a responsibility to help these events.

That means not soley relying on the marketing efforts of the hosting club/division/whatever and actively using our networks to make sure the fencers get out to the these events.

[piste off]

No serious highly ranked Junior or Senior fencer is going to travel to a ROC outside a reasonable driving distance for the prize of just Div IA entry that is meaningless.

Agreed.

If you look soley at the incentive of the ROC (Div 1A qualification) then it is not really that compelling for those fencers, and perhaps even the lower end of the ladder that views their chances of getting into the top 10% as minimal.

I look at the establishment of the ROCs more as an opportunity to create a strong regional system, as opposed to "it is a good idea that stands alone on its merits as designed."

Right now, we still have a lot of fragmented events and no compelling reason to get the fencers out to turn anyone of them into something big. You could argue (with good rationale) that it is the job of the hosts to do that, but whether it is lack of marketing skills or creativity that is not happening.

I look at the new ROCs (as opposed to slapping a ROC definition on an event that already is successful) as a chance to alter that. Merely a catalyst for change.

From a marketing standpoint, if the organizers do their part (as I've outlined previously) then we should do ours (meaning aggressively encouraging and recruiting fencers to get out to the event).

What will drive the highly ranked junior and senior fencers is the promise of a large quality event. That is easier to do with the new ROCs than trying to pump-up a local event that has been drawing a dozen people over the last few years.

I know this because I've already started to promote the first event in our area and have commitment from a national champion (age-group) fencer as well as one of the Junior team champ members (who is going to recruit the rest of his team if I don't get to them first). This is in addition to about a half-dozen other quality fencers that were not even aware of the event. This was just after one slow practice night, and have not even started seriously yet.

[Jason]

For example, what large events do you see in the NY area (with perhaps the largest concentration of fencers in the US) and how has this been expanding? To be clear, I am defining large non-NACs to be of the quality/size of the CBO or PDT. And if you are correct, then it is not happening fast enough IMO.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Events like PdT, Mr. Ma, and CBO are all extremely close to the NY area and draw heavily from our stable of fencers. Additionally, we routinely have local events here with over 40 fencers, many of whom are top US points holders. Also--especially if you look to NJ--there are many similar sized events with weaker (and/or younger) fencers. You don't need larger events than that. From both an economic and competitive point of view, the majority of the fencers' needs are being served.

Regarding "we", since I am viewing it through a difference lens (specifically opportunity for the fencers as opposed to opportunity for the local club to make some extra coin) then I think we (the fencing community) do have a responsibility to help these events.

That means not soley relying on the marketing efforts of the hosting club/division/whatever and actively using our networks to make sure the fencers get out to the these events.

Here's where the real difficulty is with any ROC discussion. If established events (like, say, PdT or CBO or whatever) are already succeeding both in economic and fencing terms, then there is no reason for USFA interference (if this can't be agreed upon, then I think we'll all need to review the assumptions we're bringing into this discussion). That, then, means that you are suggesting that the USFA has a responsibility to help certain events that are brand new, with no prior history.

Here are the problems with that argument:
1. The NOC system, as it was originally presented, was meant to tie together events that had an established history of success into an official circuit. The only way to get a NOC designation was to show you knew what you were doing. (But, of course, if you know what you're doing, why do you need to involve the USFA?) Why/how did that criteria change? What was the reasoning and the expected result?

2. If you are going to include new events, then the USFA risks sullying whatever brand it may be trying to create with ROC/NOC. If only events of a certain size and strength with consistent organizational practices have the ROC designation, then the consumer can expect a certain product for that brand. Once new events are included, the consumer no longer knows what to expect and the brand loses significance. No one will care if it is called a ROC event or not, they will continue to pick their events as they always have: by reviewing past results and by word-of-mouth.

3. If the ROC designation actually manages to boost the attendance of a particular event, then the USFA is unfairly advantaging one club over its competitors. If a club, with no history of holding events on the scale of, say, PdT is awarded a ROC designation for one of its competitions and, thanks to that designation, has a tremendous turnout (a suspicious assumption, but one that is inherent in the ROC argument), that club is not only getting a de facto subsidy from the USFA, but it can claim priority for future ROC designations over its competitors as it now, after all, has a history of running a successful ROC event. This bias is an inherently unfair practice and one that the USFA should adamantly avoid.

It's important for fencers to have sufficient competition and training opportunities. The creation of these opportunities cannot be separated from the realities of the market. Additionally, the governance of the USFA has not demonstrated the level of fiscal or developmental competence to be trusted to supersede the normal function of the free-market.

There is plenty that the USFA can do to benefit US clubs, but most of that would be in the form of information (eg. resources for more smoothly running competitions, coaching resources, business guides, etc).

(As an aside, I think that regionalization is a great idea. Until the USFA has a clear idea of what form it will take, however, there is no way to properly create the infrastructure for it. There is nothing in the ROC system that suggests any real plan for regionalization, so I think it's a mistake to conflate the two.)