2009-2010 ROC Update

[Redblade]

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.

... Plus, I'd argue the ROCs are in more "interesting" cities than the typical NAC, so the extracurricular activities are more appealing.

The ROC-designated events remind me of the worn dirt paths you find across the lawns at big universities, and the sidewalks are the NACs.

[Jason]

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.

How large are these groups of fencers? What has the USFA done to get an actual sense of this market? If there hasn't been any actual market research done here, addressing the "problem" (or even understanding if there truly is one) will be extremely difficult.

Assuming there is an actual market there, how does the ROC address those fencers' needs? How can relabeling events that already exist have any kind of effect?

Do those theoretical under-served fencers not already go to events like DitD? If so, then the ROC does nothing. If those fencers don't already go, then how can a relabeling change that? If the real problem is a lack of new faces to fence, then those under-served fencers would already be going to those events. The solution to some competitors not having enough new people to fence against can't possibly be "create a new qualifying path to nationals" or "create a meaningless point system". That is absurdly illogical. All you're doing is adding new external motives. According to your argument, the problem is not a lack of motivation, but a lack of ways for people to fulfill their motives.

If your argument is the actual basis of the ROC idea, the USFA governance needs to take an intro econ course.

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 would actually just like one meaning, please.

The only thing that the ROC may do that's beneficial is create a new revenue stream for the USFA. I honestly hope that is the real purpose of it, because at least I won't be forced to assume that a large group of real life human beings are backing a plan with no point.

Of course, if the point of the ROC is to make the USFA more money, I'd add that the plan could use some work...

[pillow]

Jason, I agree with you. Please note my previous post #80 above. However, in the final analysis, we can determine that the idea behind re-naming already well attended tournaments "ROCs" is of little use, but I don't see the USFA changing its policy. In other words, unlike a serious mistake such as the the recent Stay & Play disaster, there is not that much of a downside to the ROC system. If it makes some people happy to lend more prestige to events that are already very good, and it also helps to promote some newer events and make them better, I don't have a big problem with that. I just think it's silly to expect fencers to do any significant travel across the country to fence these events, and that they will remain a draw only for those within driving distance. The idea of awarding Div IA entry is of minor consequence and will not motivate high level fencers anymore than a chance to fence a good, large competition. If the USFA really wanted to do something special, it would award Div I points, perhaps based on a strength factor, but then we have a parallel NAC system and all the problems that will pose...

[Jason]

In other words, unlike a serious mistake such as the the recent Stay & Play disaster, there is not that much of a downside to the ROC system.

There are plenty of potential downsides:

Should the USFA be involved in unfairly advantaging certain clubs over others? Might this not have a downside?
Should the new leadership of the organization be given credit for a series of organizations when all they're doing is relabeling successful operations? Might this not have a downside?
Considering the limits of the USFA's resources, should time and effort be applied to a program with no clear purpose or sense? Might this not have a downside?
Should the membership blindly accept the leadership putting forward a program without any clear logic or rational basis? Might this not have a downside?

It's easy to want to believe that the ROC idea is a good one--after all, tying large, successful events together appeals to certain basic organizational elements of the human mind--but without any actual justification for it, the "plan" is unnecessary and risky.

[dberke]

Should the USFA be involved in unfairly advantaging certain clubs over others? Might this not have a downside?

How are they unfairly advantaging certain clubs? The events already exist, so the clubs are doing nothing different. If being a ROC adds value to an event and therefore gives a club an advantage, that seems to contradict your statement that the ROC program has no value.

Should the new leadership of the organization be given credit for a series of organizations when all they're doing is relabeling successful operations? Might this not have a downside?

Such as what? All of the events that are in the ROC bid to do so, and accepted the fact that the USFA will take some credit for the success. If they weren't ok with that fact, why would they have bid?

Considering the limits of the USFA's resources, should time and effort be applied to a program with no clear purpose or sense? Might this not have a downside?

How much time and effort (that has cost actual dollars) do you think the USFA has spent? More or less than the expected revenue the ROCs will generate for them? I suspect it's FAR less than what they will make.

Should the membership blindly accept the leadership putting forward a program without any clear logic or rational basis? Might this not have a downside?

Have you stopped to consider that the ROC program may be the first step towards a larger goal?

It's easy to want to believe that the ROC idea is a good one--after all, tying large, successful events together appeals to certain basic organizational elements of the human mind--but without any actual justification for it, the "plan" is unnecessary and risky.

People said the same thing when they added Div II/III events to NACs and when they started the RYCs, but they were proven wrong. I suspect you will be too.

Dan

[pillow]

Have you stopped to consider that the ROC program may be the first step towards a larger goal? QUOTE

D-

Larger goal? Secret plans in the works or something the USFA would want input about from the membership?

[oiuyt]

Anyone else reminded of the West Wing episode "Celestial Navigation"?

-B

[Wafath]

Anyone else reminded of the West Wing episode "Celestial Navigation"?

No?

W

[Jason]

How are they unfairly advantaging certain clubs? The events already exist, so the clubs are doing nothing different. If being a ROC adds value to an event and therefore gives a club an advantage, that seems to contradict your statement that the ROC program has no value.

I broke this down in an earlier post. Put simply: If calling something a ROC does, in fact, create increased attendance for an event, then the USFA is creating an unfair advantage for one club over its competitors. This is particularly pronounced in those cases where a brand new event is given a ROC designation. If the designation doesn't create an increase in attendance, then the new events sully the ROC brand.

No win.

Such as what? All of the events that are in the ROC bid to do so, and accepted the fact that the USFA will take some credit for the success. If they weren't ok with that fact, why would they have bid?

Dan, I understand that you're a "true believer", but the current administration has failed in fulfilling its 100 Days promises and has created several other fiascos (such as, of course, Stay & Play). Taking credit where they have not contributed anything positive will certainly look nice when the alternative is to look at a series of failures. I want the new administration to actually succeed, not pretend to do so.

How much time and effort (that has cost actual dollars) do you think the USFA has spent? More or less than the expected revenue the ROCs will generate for them? I suspect it's FAR less than what they will make.

If that's the actual issue--creating revenue for the USFA--then fine. While the plan is extremely imperfect, at least it would make some sense. But the USFA is presenting this an an opportunity to create greater competitive opportunities and help develop US Fencing. I see nothing to suggest that the ROC idea does anything positive for US Fencing (other than adding revenue). If this is really just a scheme to make money, the USFA should be upfront about its intentions. Not only would the membership be able to fairly assess the success of the program, but the organization would be better off without a leadership that was lying to it.

So, either this is really about money and USFA is lying, or it's about development and the USFA is incompetent. In either case, any resources applied here by the USFA (whether or not they are in dollars) is being misused.

Have you stopped to consider that the ROC program may be the first step towards a larger goal?

Is this a joke, Dan? Is there some secret goal that the membership can't be trusted to know? Quite a few people have been asking (on this thread and elsewhere) what the goal is. No one seems to be able to answer that. Please share what you know, Dan. If, in fact, you don't know what the plan is either, then you need to stop assuming everything is going to work out thanks to the invisible hand of the USFA.

People said the same thing when they added Div II/III events to NACs and when they started the RYCs, but they were proven wrong. I suspect you will be too.

Wrong about what, Dan? Wrong that the USFA has not presented anything that suggests that the ROC idea can do what it's "supposed" to, or makes any sense at all? If I "will" be proven wrong, then it should be able to happen now.

[tchwojko]

Put simply: If calling something a ROC does, in fact, create increased attendance for an event, then the USFA is creating an unfair advantage for one club over its competitors.

Emphasis mine.

By this logic, choosing any city in the US for an NAC creates an unfair advantage for clubs in that area versus other divisions. Similarly choosing one club's facilities over another for a division qualifier creates an unfair advantage.

It may be an advantage for a club, but I don't necessarily agree that it is unfair.

Having a large tournament drawing high quality fencers from outside the hosts' division helps fencing as a whole in that community by increasing the level of competition.

[dberke]

I broke this down in an earlier post. Put simply: If calling something a ROC does, in fact, create increased attendance for an event, then the USFA is creating an unfair advantage for one club over its competitors. This is particularly pronounced in those cases where a brand new event is given a ROC designation. If the designation doesn't create an increase in attendance, then the new events sully the ROC brand.

No win.

Perhaps if you didn't look at other clubs as competitors, but rather as partners with the shared goal of increasing the level of competition and growth at the regional level, you'd see why I don't see this as an "unfair advantage"

In our division, the big events (including our ROC) are run by the division. The club that hosts the event gets paid rent for the facility and that's about all. All revenue made by the event is kept by the division, which is in turn used it to fund programs beneficial to the entire division. Maybe that model won't work for other divisions, but it works damn well out here.

Dan, I understand that you're a "true believer", but the current administration has failed in fulfilling its 100 Days promises and has created several other fiascos (such as, of course, Stay & Play). Taking credit where they have not contributed anything positive will certainly look nice when the alternative is to look at a series of failures. I want the new administration to actually succeed, not pretend to do so.

Brad addressed the 100-days thing in a separate thread (sorry, can't find the link), so I won't rehash what has been accomplished and where they've fallen short of their goal.

I don't know if it's accurate to call me a "true believer"... I guess you could get that impression from my posts. Rest assured, I am highly critical of the USFA in some areas, but I choose to contact the responsibile people responsible directly to tell them my thoughts, rather than posting here where they're unlikely to be noticed.

I will say that you come across as the ultimate critic, with little positive to say about the USFA.

If that's the actual issue--creating revenue for the USFA--then fine. While the plan is extremely imperfect, at least it would make some sense. But the USFA is presenting this an an opportunity to create greater competitive opportunities and help develop US Fencing. I see nothing to suggest that the ROC idea does anything positive for US Fencing (other than adding revenue). If this is really just a scheme to make money, the USFA should be upfront about its intentions. Not only would the membership be able to fairly assess the success of the program, but the organization would be better off without a leadership that was lying to it.

So, either this is really about money and USFA is lying, or it's about development and the USFA is incompetent. In either case, any resources applied here by the USFA (whether or not they are in dollars) is being misused.

The goal of the ROC is stated as:

The goal of the NOC is to expand the reliable strength of large super-regional events below the Div I NAC level. It will serve as a developmental path for athletes and intends to provide level-appropriate competitions for the Div IA fencer, historically underserved by the national tournament structure.

The side benefits for the USFA include:
- Increased revenue from ROC fees
- More opportunities to train referees and bout committee staff at the local level in order to prepare them for national-level events
- To develop a strong regional system that can help ease the burden of the already overworked national event system

If you don't see value in those things, that's your decision. Many others do, including myself.

Is this a joke, Dan? Is there some secret goal that the membership can't be trusted to know? Quite a few people have been asking (on this thread and elsewhere) what the goal is. No one seems to be able to answer that. Please share what you know, Dan. If, in fact, you don't know what the plan is either, then you need to stop assuming everything is going to work out thanks to the invisible hand of the USFA.

The goal has been presented (as I just did above) but I think you are just refusing to accept it. If you're going to question that goal, why not question lots of other things - what's the goal of having Y-10 events at Summer Nationals? What's the goal of having Div II and III?

The USFA is clearly trying to offload some of its work and help develop a system that will appeal to people that currently go to NACs. It partially helps address the constant issue of NACs requiring too much travel by "endorsing" strong events in areas that will be closer to home for most fencers. And the ROCs are also a first step in killing off the annual pain-in-the-ass event called "sectionals" (visit any section west of the Mississippi and you'll understand why I say that.)

Wrong about what, Dan? Wrong that the USFA has not presented anything that suggests that the ROC idea can do what it's "supposed" to, or makes any sense at all? If I "will" be proven wrong, then it should be able to happen now.

That's what I'm trying to do...

Dan

[Inquartata]

How large are these groups of fencers? What has the USFA done to get an actual sense of this market? If there hasn't been any actual market research done here, addressing the "problem" (or even understanding if there truly is one) will be extremely difficult.

How much market research is needed? Any fencer with a B age 22-39, pretty much...no?

Do those theoretical under-served fencers not already go to events like DitD? If so, then the ROC does nothing.

Right. That's been my question all along.

The logic thus far offered for ROCs would only be operative if designation as a ROC actually changed anything about these tournaments ( other than, oh, forcing them to stop offering mixed events ). If it changes nothing, how are they supposed to expand the number or quality of entrants or aid in "development"?

By this logic, choosing any city in the US for an NAC creates an unfair advantage for clubs in that area versus other divisions.

Devil's advocate:

Yes, for one, or at most two, years.

As opposed to ROC-designated events, which have been in the same places for many years or decades and will remain in the same places year after coming year. A permanent advantage, rather than a rotating one...

[tchwojko]

Devil's advocate:

Yes, for one, or at most two, years.

As opposed to ROC-designated events, which have been in the same places for many years or decades and will remain in the same places year after coming year. A permanent advantage, rather than a rotating one...

You're usually more devilish than that. If it's already been in place for years, then the ROC status doesn't add any advantage that wasn't already there.

[Jason]

Emphasis mine.

By this logic, choosing any city in the US for an NAC creates an unfair advantage for clubs in that area versus other divisions. Similarly choosing one club's facilities over another for a division qualifier creates an unfair advantage.

It may be an advantage for a club, but I don't necessarily agree that it is unfair.

Having a large tournament drawing high quality fencers from outside the hosts' division helps fencing as a whole in that community by increasing the level of competition.

A division is a subsection of the USFA. If the USFA chose specific clubs to hold NACs, then yes it would create an unfair advantage.

Depending on how qualifiers are chosen they, too, may create unfair advantages. I'm sure there are folks in NJ who could comment at length. However, a qualifier does not bring in the revenue that ROC events potentially can, so the scale is different.

Perhaps if you didn't look at other clubs as competitors, but rather as partners with the shared goal of increasing the level of competition and growth at the regional level, you'd see why I don't see this as an "unfair advantage"

In the grown-up world, people work for a living, Dan.

In our division, the big events (including our ROC) are run by the division. The club that hosts the event gets paid rent for the facility and that's about all. All revenue made by the event is kept by the division, which is in turn used it to fund programs beneficial to the entire division. Maybe that model won't work for other divisions, but it works damn well out here.

Actually, if the ROC events were all run at the division level, with proceeds going to the division, I would absolutely rethink some of my argument. However, some are division-run events and others are private club events. The two are not equal.

The goal has been presented (as I just did above) but I think you are just refusing to accept it. If you're going to question that goal, why not question lots of other things - what's the goal of having Y-10 events at Summer Nationals? What's the goal of having Div II and III?

Y-10 Summer National events are idiotic. However, that has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm not sure why you would argue against questioning the things the USFA does. That kind of submissiveness is not healthy for the organization.

I've mentioned repeatedly the problems with the USFA's stated goals regarding the ROC. I you'd like me to restate them, I'd be happy to.

The USFA is clearly trying to offload some of its work and help develop a system that will appeal to people that currently go to NACs. It partially helps address the constant issue of NACs requiring too much travel by "endorsing" strong events in areas that will be closer to home for most fencers. And the ROCs are also a first step in killing off the annual pain-in-the-ass event called "sectionals" (visit any section west of the Mississippi and you'll understand why I say that.)

What work is it offloading? The majority of the ROC events already existed. If anything, the USFA is simply creating new work for itself (maintaining a new set of points lists, choosing events to designate, etc). Has the endorsement actually resulted in many more people going to events that they wouldn't have already gone to? Was there really a lack of incentive for fencers to do to the "Div IA level" events? Did the USFA really say, "Hey, I wish more people went to the Duel in the Desert. How an we incentivize participation?" Because it seems to me that if there really is a demand for non-NAC events from midlevel fencers, adding incentives to participate in the already-existing ones does absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

[Jason]

How much market research is needed? Any fencer with a B age 22-39, pretty much...no?

You would also want to know how many of those fencers feel under-served by their current conditions.

[dberke]

A division is a subsection of the USFA. If the USFA chose specific clubs to hold NACs, then yes it would create an unfair advantage.

So do you object to the SYC events too? The USFA is choosing which clubs get to host those. That's an unfair advantage for those clubs, yes? Should we discontinue SYCs or manage them in some other way?

Depending on how qualifiers are chosen they, too, may create unfair advantages. I'm sure there are folks in NJ who could comment at length. However, a qualifier does not bring in the revenue that ROC events potentially can, so the scale is different.

The problems in NJ are of their own making and aren't relevant to this discussion, except that it just proves that people who put their own profits ahead of the purported goal ("to grow fencing") ultimately are contaminating the process.

It's up to members of each division to figure out what system works best for them. Clearly the folks in NJ have a system that doesn't work. That kind of stuff, however, should be figured out BEFORE bidding on a ROC/SYC/etc.

In the grown-up world, people work for a living, Dan.

Gee, thanks, I would never have guessed. I realized long ago that I'm not going to make a living off of fencing and consequently I have a real-world non-fencing-related job. And yet I put in a whole lot of hours doing free volunteer work to help the sport. So please don't patronize me - I'm actually doing something other than complaining about every decision the USFA makes.

Actually, if the ROC events were all run at the division level, with proceeds going to the division, I would absolutely rethink some of my argument. However, some are division-run events and others are private club events. The two are not equal.

We are in agreement here, amazingly enough. Division-run and private club-run events are not equal. That just reinforces my point that, if a division doesn't have a way of handling club-run events in a manner that is accepted by everyone, problems will arise. But it's not the USFA's job to make that judgment. Witness the fact that there are SYCs being held in NJ despite the legal chaos going on.

Y-10 Summer National events are idiotic. However, that has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm not sure why you would argue against questioning the things the USFA does. That kind of submissiveness is not healthy for the organization.

I'm not suggesting you don't question what the USFA does, but your incessant criticism with no discernable constructive suggestions is getting old.

I've mentioned repeatedly the problems with the USFA's stated goals regarding the ROC. I you'd like me to restate them, I'd be happy to.

No, that's ok, I've heard it all before. Here's a better idea... given the stated mission of the ROCs that I posted before, what kind of program would YOU propose that would meet that goal? If you have a better idea than the ROCs, let's hear it!

What work is it offloading? The majority of the ROC events already existed. If anything, the USFA is simply creating new work for itself (maintaining a new set of points lists, choosing events to designate, etc). Has the endorsement actually resulted in many more people going to events that they wouldn't have already gone to? Was there really a lack of incentive for fencers to do to the "Div IA level" events? Did the USFA really say, "Hey, I wish more people went to the Duel in the Desert. How an we incentivize participation?" Because it seems to me that if there really is a demand for non-NAC events from midlevel fencers, adding incentives to participate in the already-existing ones does absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

Maintaining a point list takes mere minutes using AskFRED, so that's hardly more work. The work of choosing the events is done by a volunteer committee, so no financial cost is incurred by the USFA there either.

As for whether more people will go to ROCs because they are called ROCs, well, you'd need to ask them. Why don't you wait until the season concludes and see what happens?

Again, you may see no value in the ROC designations. Yet 8 different tournaments around the country did see value - enough so that they're willing to pay $5/head to the USFA. Are all of those people deluded? Or perhaps maybe they have a better sense of what the members want than you do?

Let's wait until the season concludes to see who's right...

Dan

[Jason]

So do you object to the SYC events too? The USFA is choosing which clubs get to host those. That's an unfair advantage for those clubs, yes? Should we discontinue SYCs or manage them in some other way?

Considering that there is no transparency at all in how SYCs are chosen, I would say, yes, we need another way. There could most certainly be an unfair advantage being granted to one club over its competitors.

The problems in NJ are of their own making and aren't relevant to this discussion, except that it just proves that people who put their own profits ahead of the purported goal ("to grow fencing") ultimately are contaminating the process.

Actually, we can learn a lot from NJ here.
In NJ, fencing is a real business for many people. Some of the conflicts there arise from the fact tournaments raise real money for real businesses and that things like SYCs, qualifiers, etc., need to be distributed carefully.

It's up to members of each division to figure out what system works best for them. Clearly the folks in NJ have a system that doesn't work. That kind of stuff, however, should be figured out BEFORE bidding on a ROC/SYC/etc.

That would be true if divisions were the ones bidding for ROCs. Since clubs can bid individually (and, apparently, sometimes without any prior history of running a very large event), the "figuring out" falls on the USFA.

Gee, thanks, I would never have guessed. I realized long ago that I'm not going to make a living off of fencing and consequently I have a real-world non-fencing-related job. And yet I put in a whole lot of hours doing free volunteer work to help the sport. So please don't patronize me - I'm actually doing something other than complaining about every decision the USFA makes.

Your volunteerism is commendable, but increasingly fewer aspects of fencing fall under the realm of the volunteer. Two clubs in the same market are not partners trying to grow the sport. They are competitors trying to grow their businesses. The club that doesn't understand that will be the business that fails.

We are in agreement here, amazingly enough. Division-run and private club-run events are not equal. That just reinforces my point that, if a division doesn't have a way of handling club-run events in a manner that is accepted by everyone, problems will arise. But it's not the USFA's job to make that judgment. Witness the fact that there are SYCs being held in NJ despite the legal chaos going on.

It is very much the USFA's job to make that judgement, since they are the ones designating ROCs.

I'm not suggesting you don't question what the USFA does, but your incessant criticism with no discernable constructive suggestions is getting old.

Man up, Dan. If I didn't care about the USFA (or reason, for that matter), I wouldn't point out the logical follies it so often commits. A well formed critique can help many alternative options become clear to an objective mind. I personally would go along with just about anything, as long as it was logically sound.

No, that's ok, I've heard it all before. Here's a better idea... given the stated mission of the ROCs that I posted before, what kind of program would YOU propose that would meet that goal? If you have a better idea than the ROCs, let's hear it!

The posted goal is nonsense.
As I mentioned repeatedly before (don't get stuck on just my criticisms, Dan. I post a lot of different things), if the USFA wants to improve the quality and quantity of non-NAC competitions, what it needs to do is help facilitate bottom-up solutions by increasing and improving the resources it makes available to clubs (coaches training, business training, etc.). The 8 Olympic medals we got over the past two Olympics are all the result of bottom-up development. That seems to be working. The USFA should help, not meddle. Lots of people already go to events like Mr. Ma, etc. No need to incentivize participation. When a new event gets ROC status, it's unfair to that club's competitors. Additionally, the USFA has no business interfering with the free market. Let that club create a successful event on its own.

Maintaining a point list takes mere minutes using AskFRED, so that's hardly more work. The work of choosing the events is done by a volunteer committee, so no financial cost is incurred by the USFA there either.

Stop thinking of costs as simply financial. A volunteer doing labor is a cost. That volunteer could otherwise be doing something else.

As for whether more people will go to ROCs because they are called ROCs, well, you'd need to ask them. Why don't you wait until the season concludes and see what happens?

Maybe because we just finished a year of NOCs? Or is the USFA planning on changing the name every year so that each year you can say, "Let's wait and see what happens" as if it's something new?

Again, you may see no value in the ROC designations. Yet 8 different tournaments around the country did see value - enough so that they're willing to pay $5/head to the USFA. Are all of those people deluded? Or perhaps maybe they have a better sense of what the members want than you do?

I don't think you understand my argument. Whether or not there are eight events that wanted to be designated as ROCs has nothing to do with whether or not the ROCs are a useful expenditure of limited USFA resources that will result in the growth (in quality and quantity) of US fencing and competitions in a way that does not unfairly intervene with the normal functioning of the free market.

[Dev]

You would also want to know how many of those fencers feel under-served by their current conditions.

Interesting thought there. The ROC system is supposed to provide "meaningful" competition opportunities to those fencers--well, define "meaningful." To most people posting here, honestly, "meaningful" means "used for team selection." That's why Div1 NACs get the most cachet, followed by Junior and Cadet and JOs, with Vets shoehorned in there somewhere because they can complain very loudly.

The farther one gets from points, the more "meaningless" the event is considered--hence Div1A, Div 2, Div 3 being constantly derided. Even junior and cadet fencers who will never earn a spot on a national team are more highly valued, because at least they can use the sport to pad their resume for college.

You're attempting to create "meaningful" events for a category of fencer that basically the entire USFA considers "meaningless"--the ones that will never see a team. So how do you create a meaningful event for meaningless fencers (by popular definition; I don't necessarily agree with the designation)? "Meaning" does not simply equal "points standings" when the points don't count for anything; it probably also does not equal an even more narrow qualification path to an uneven event whose qualifiers were previously decided more by geography than anything else. Besides, everybody just makes fun of 1A anyway.

I suspect the definition of "meaningful competition opportunity" is quite different for the Lost Generation of Vet-22s than it is for the most highly regarded coaches and fencers in the US. It's not entirely clear what it is, either.

Let's look at D2/D3. Are these "meaningful" events to the fencers that attend them? Probably, because they're USFA-run and organized, they have large professional referee corps, and they are well-attended. But what do the fencers at that level actually get out of it (apart from fun and experience, which don't factor well into a top-level decision-making process)? They get the ability to fence themselves out of it by earning a rating at the top end, basically. You can fence yourself out of Div 3 by earning a C in the top 4; likewise Div 2, with a B. Both have "climbing the ladder" aspects to them--it's just a flatter, shorter ladder that leads to nowhere.

Is the answer just another rung? Make a Div1A NAC for B and lower fencers, and change the requirement for a Div1 NAC to be a B or higher? That extends the stick onto the end of which the carrot is hung, and entices a slightly higher caliber of fencer to chase it. But the USFA doesn't want more NACs, certainly; they're stressed to the limit running the NACs they have. Hence ROC--pawn it off on regionalization, but don't work too hard--can't we piggyback on events we already have?

To the Lost Generation, maybe a meaningful event is one that combines a professional environment, a large turnout, and the illusion of progress. The ROC system provides two out of three for basically no cost. But the third is the most important and the one that makes fencers come out--so nobody goes to the ROCs that aren't nearby.

[Jason]

Excellent post, Dev.

[NGV]

Let's look at D2/D3. Are these "meaningful" events to the fencers that attend them? Probably, because they're USFA-run and organized, they have large professional referee corps, and they are well-attended. But what do the fencers at that level actually get out of it (apart from fun and experience, which don't factor well into a top-level decision-making process)? They get the ability to fence themselves out of it by earning a rating at the top end, basically.

I don't think that earning a rating makes sense as the sole reason to go to a D2/D3 NAC- seems like an easier way to do that would be to seek out small and weak A2 events (the kind where it might possible to earn a C without defeating a single rated fencer). Much less expensive, and fewer DE's between you and the rating.

But the USFA doesn't want more NACs, certainly; they're stressed to the limit running the NACs they have. Hence ROC--pawn it off on regionalization, but don't work too hard--can't we piggyback on events we already have?

You make this sound like a bad thing, but I don't think it is - in fact, I think it's completely necessary if the sport continues to grow.

To the Lost Generation, maybe a meaningful event is one that combines a professional environment, a large turnout, and the illusion of progress. The ROC system provides two out of three for basically no cost. But the third is the most important and the one that makes fencers come out--so nobody goes to the ROCs that aren't nearby.

And that goes back to the argument I made before about the possible usefulness of awarding a few national points at ROCs (and expanding the size of the national points ranking at the same time).