2009-2010 ROC Update

[teacup]

The USFA has bigger problems than expanding the number of mid-level competitions). There is no need to apply a top-down solution.

While the USFA does have bigger problems to deal with, expanding mid level competition opportunities for all age and ability groups is a good thing, fulfilling the mission of the USFA which is to promote fencing.

The USFA awards national points at SYC's and RYC's are a qualification path for Y10/Y12 fencers for the April NAC and Summer Nationals. Without these incentives, I do not believe there would be the same growth and popularity of SYC's and RYC's. Creating ROC's, which offer USFA incentives, follows a similar strategy. While promoting individual events is indeed the job of the individual organizers, promoting fencing is the job of the USFA. Creating incentives such as qualification paths and points, will help encourage participation at these events.

One of the reasons that national Div I ME events have increased so dramatically in size, is due to the fact that many B and above ME fencers aged 21 - 39, had few strong regional events to attend. Encouraging and supporting ROC's improves the fencing opportunities for this group of fencers, which benefits fencers and may decrease the attendance at national events.

Hopefully, the next stage with be a cadet circuit based on the model of the European Cadet Circuit to increase the strength of all our cadets, rather than just those who are able to travel to Europe.

As for the eventual regionalization of the USFA, why not? With strong ROC's, SYC's, RYC's and eventually Cadet events, sections and divisions will become redundant. It is becoming increasing difficult to recruit volunteers to be officers who's main "job" is to organize and host large division/section qualifiers. I do not believe the USFA has a contingency plan in place if divisions or sections cannot find anyone to volunteer to host these qualifiers. Regionalizing will work if clubs and individuals have both financial, qualification paths and points incentives to host these events.

[Jason]

Creating ROC's, which offer USFA incentives, follows a similar strategy. While promoting individual events is indeed the job of the individual organizers, promoting fencing is the job of the USFA. Creating incentives such as qualification paths and points, will help encourage participation at these events.

You are mistaken. The USFA did not create ROC events. They labelled currently existing events. Those events were already well-attended and, therefore, had no need for additional incentives.

As for labeling brand new events as ROCs, I posted my arguments against that idea in my post above.

[NGV]

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.

Actually, I think that expanding the opportunities to earn national points - and, in the process, expanding the size of the national points list - is a worthwhile goal in its own right. Given the number of competitive fencers in the country, I don't see any reason that only a few dozen should qualify for a place in the national ranking for each weapon. I imagine that a more widely accessible opportunity to earn a national ranking, followed by available opportunities to progress up the ranking, could help motivate fencers outside of the top tier to remain committed to training and competition. Of course, you'd have to limit the DI nationals to the top X people on the points list, but that's no problem.

As long as the points available at the regional level are kept low enough so as to not impact the top of the points ranking (by awarding only a small number of points and/or only counting the top 2 or so ROC finishes toward the ranking), I don't see any drawback to awarding national points for selected USFA approved regional events.

In short, I think that A. expanding the national points list and B. promoting strong and meaningful regional competitions would both be positive outcomes. The former seems like a good way of helping achieve the latter, and vice versa.

[teacup]

You are mistaken. The USFA did not create ROC events. They labelled currently existing events. Those events were already well-attended and, therefore, had no need for additional incentives.

As for labeling brand new events as ROCs, I posted my arguments against that idea in my post above.

I realize that the USFA didn't create these events, they just labeled existing tournaments as ROC's but making them qualifying paths for Div IA as incentives was their creation.

Actually, I agree with you about the downside of the USFA awarding ROC status to specific events. Unfortunately, this is what has happened with SYC's. Especially since the USFA hasn't set a policy as to whether these large regional events are in the same location/same organizer year after year or rotated to new locations/organizers each year. The USFA using both systems for SYC allocation has definitely created problems.

You are correct there are pros and cons to the means of regionalization which is currently being done.

[Jason]

I realize that the USFA didn't create these events, they just labeled existing tournaments as ROC,s but making them qualifying paths for Div IA as incentives was their creation.

But these events don't require incentives.
There are two separate issues that often are confused with the ROC idea.

One is growing midlevel competition opportunities. The other is regionalization. These are not the same issue and, in fact, neither is addressed by the ROC system.

The first, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, needs a bottom-up solution (although informational resources and training from the USFA can help). The second needs very extensive planning with a clear image of the goal in mind.

I cannot see any problem that the ROC idea solves. However, there are many it can create.

[teacup]

What if instead of labeling events SYC's or ROC's, points were awarded or qualification paths were determined if events reached a certain strength factor?

This would mean that the USFA wasn't endorsing any tournaments over others. People would attend based on the value and reputation of the tournaments, which in turn would raise or lower the strength of the events.

The points would have to be the best two or so out of the total, as is done with rolling points. If all points are included, which is how some circuit championships are awarded, it turns into a contest between who attends the most events.

One benefit of giving Div I or Senior points based on a strength factor to placement at regional tournaments, whether these events are ROC's or not, is that it would be a means to more accurately seed fencers without having to revamp the whole letter ranking system.

[KD5MDK]

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.

I'd never thought of the CBO as being extremely close to NY, but you're the one that lives there.

[Piste_Pearl]

If I recall, it is simple top 10%, autos are not skipped either.

Thanks!

I really don't have a problem with either scenerio. It's being given one ane anser one day and a completely different one the next. Not cool. Besides it makes the organizers and governing body look bad.

[pillow]

There is a fundamental problem here that I don't think has been fully discussed. Even though ROC stands for Regional Open Circuit, it is not really a circuit at all. It is simply a way to give a boost to create larger, high quality regional events. As was previously posted, no high level Junior or Senior fencer is going to travel to multiple ROCs if plane tickets or missed school or work is an issue. Those fencers are already fencing NACs and perhaps internationally.

If you stop thinking of ROCs as part of a "circuit" it is easier to understand. The only way you are going to get people to travel is if you give real Div I points, not Div IA. And then you have created a "shadow" NAC system with all the problems that happened with the advent of the SYC events---little kids flying from San Francisco to Jersey City to get national points. Do we really want that again for older fencers?--of course not. A better name for ROC would have been Regional Open Competitions.

Anyone think otherwise?

[fdad]

I'd never thought of the CBO as being extremely close to NY, but you're the one that lives there.

Without traffic, its about 3.5 hours from NY to PdT, and about 3.5 hours from NY to CBO.

[stillchris]

Without traffic, its about 3.5 hours from NY to PdT, and about 3.5 hours from NY to CBO.

And with traffic? Just idle curiosity, I haven't driven back East in some time.

--chris

[Emfuser]

(originally posted in another thread)
There is some legitimate concern if you look at AskFred results for these events in previous years and take notice that the often the events are often considerably stronger than many sectional qualifiers. Why the cutoff is at 10% and involves no pushing down of spots for people already qualified (based on what I've read here) is sort of a mystery to me. We have some weak ass sectional qualifiers that send the top 25% to nationals in 1A, then we have some very strong events sending only 10%? Something needs re-configuring.

[teacup]

(originally posted in another thread)
There is some legitimate concern if you look at AskFred results for these events in previous years and take notice that the often the events are often considerably stronger than many sectional qualifiers. Why the cutoff is at 10% and involves no pushing down of spots for people already qualified (based on what I've read here) is sort of a mystery to me. We have some weak ass sectional qualifiers that send the top 25% to nationals in 1A, then we have some very strong events sending only 10%? Something needs re-configuring.

This is why I wrote post #66.

"What if instead of labeling events SYC's or ROC's, points were awarded and qualification paths were determined if events reached a certain strength factor?......."

The whole qualification path system is uneven. At some large divisions/sections, fencers have difficult qualification events, while at small divisions/sections fencers just have to show up. Using strong tournaments for qualification paths could eventually end the necessity for divisions and sections.

[peet]

Baby steps folks.... Baby steps....



-p

[keith]

Baby steps folks.... Baby steps....



-p

To where?

Or more prosaically, what problem is the ROC system meant to solve and which group of fencers is it meant to benefit?

At least a few arguments have been advanced but most boil down to providing a more even competitive landscape that allows those below the top level to have a good day out.

Assuming that that is the case then simply making another set of events, just like every other event, hardly seems a solution.

I would suggest that there are two questions that actually matter;

Is the current national competition structure leaving a group (or groups) of fencers poorly served?

Does this lack of suitable national competition result in a reduction in a participation and impact the future growth of the sport?

Not that I have anything against aimless rambling.

[oso97]

Is the current national competition structure leaving a group (or groups) of fencers poorly served?

Yes. DivIA fencers: loosely defined as the group of fencers who regularly/"always" make the top 8 or top 16 of events in their region (only to face the same competitors that they fenced last month), but who don't regularly make the points cutoff in DivI. They're looking for strong, well run tournaments where they can hone their skills and fence against some different faces than the same folks they see in their regions all the freakin' time and experience a competitive environment against fencers closer to their skill level than the top DivI bracket.

There is some overlap between this group and what some have (jokingly) referred to as the "Vet-22" category. The folks who are too old for the Junior competitions and no longer compete in the collegiate circuit, and can't rely on Bank of Mommy and Daddy to pay the bill.

Both of these groups have been clamoring for more competitions suitable for their level other than the same old divisional series of events that they always fence. The ROC's do serve some of this purpose.

And for those who would disagree, you know, there really is nothing wrong with a program having different meanings to different groups of people .

[tchwojko]

And for those who would disagree, you know, there really is nothing wrong with a program having different meanings to different groups of people .

Stop trying to create a USFA run elimination panel!!

[pillow]

Yes. DivIA fencers: loosely defined as the group of fencers who regularly/"always" make the top 8 or top 16 of events in their region (only to face the same competitors that they fenced last month), but who don't regularly make the points cutoff in DivI. They're looking for strong, well run tournaments where they can hone their skills and fence against some different faces than the same folks they see in their regions all the freakin' time and experience a competitive environment against fencers closer to their skill level than the top DivI bracket.

There is some overlap between this group and what some have (jokingly) referred to as the "Vet-22" category. The folks who are too old for the Junior competitions and no longer compete in the collegiate circuit, and can't rely on Bank of Mommy and Daddy to pay the bill.

Both of these groups have been clamoring for more competitions suitable for their level other than the same old divisional series of events that they always fence. The ROC's do serve some of this purpose.

And for those who would disagree, you know, there really is nothing wrong with a program having different meanings to different groups of people .

I agree. BUT that U22 or U23 group is simply not going to fly around the country fencing ROCS as if they were NACs. Too expensive to travel, ( especially in this economy for this age group) and no meaningful national points. The ROCs will only be good for their region, therefore they will see the same "freakin" fencers again anyway.

[dberke]

I agree. BUT that U22 or U23 group is simply not going to fly around the country fencing ROCS as if they were NACs. Too expensive to travel, ( especially in this economy for this age group) and no meaningful national points. The ROCs will only be good for their region, therefore they will see the same "freakin" fencers again anyway.

I disagree. Many of the events chosen as ROCs were already well-attended, including by fencers from out of the area. Take the Duel in the Desert as an example - lots of out-of-state fencers.

And, consider that many of the fencers in the Div I-A "Vet-22" category don't attend many NACs as it is - they're too old for junior, too young for vet, and probably can't fence Div II or III anymore. If they do go to Div I events, they probably finish in the lower half of the pack (if they even make the cut).

Those people probably would gladly trade Div I NACs for strong regional events where they will be more competitive than in Div I. Plus, I'd argue the ROCs are in more "interesting" cities than the typical NAC, so the extracurricular activities are more appealing.

The Div I-A qualifying path is just gravy on top of that, in my opinion.

Dan

[pillow]

I disagree. Many of the events chosen as ROCs were already well-attended, including by fencers from out of the area. Take the Duel in the Desert as an example - lots of out-of-state fencers.

And, consider that many of the fencers in the Div I-A "Vet-22" category don't attend many NACs as it is - they're too old for junior, too young for vet, and probably can't fence Div II or III anymore. If they do go to Div I events, they probably finish in the lower half of the pack (if they even make the cut).

Those people probably would gladly trade Div I NACs for strong regional events where they will be more competitive than in Div I. Plus, I'd argue the ROCs are in more "interesting" cities than the typical NAC, so the extracurricular activities are more appealing.

The Div I-A qualifying path is just gravy on top of that, in my opinion.

Dan

I'm certainly willing to see what happens. Would you be willing to prepare a report, which should be fairly easy, determining how many fencers attend a ROC from a distance greater than 200 miles from home? In addition, regarding your point about ROC fencers possibly doing poorly in Div I NACs--let's include in the report a look at this season's Div I NAC results and see which fencers also did ROCs and compare results. I bet that most ROC fencers come from the local region by car, not plane, and if the same fencer does a Div I NAC that they get out of the pools. In summary, my guess is that fencers will not spend money to fly to multiple ROC events in this economy, and that the majority of them will make the cut, but not make top 32 in a Div I NAC. My point is that if a fencer can't make the cut in a Div I NAC, which most Cadets and many Y14 fencers do all the time, they will also do poorly in a ROC. There may be a few exceptions, like the Duel as you say, but I believe that ROCs will remain "regional only" events. Just take a look on FRED at the registration for the Sobel event.

Now I'm not saying that it's bad to have the option to travel to high level non-NAC events out of your area, just that it will be unlikely that a significant number of fencers will do so. As in my previous post, the only reason kids flew from their club in San Francisco to the SYC at Cobra in New Jersey was for national points. Most importantly for Y14, for while there is no Y14 team of course, the top point holders are automatic for Cadet JOs and Cadet SN. But lots of Y12 kids did the same thing, and it was all pretty silly.