2009-2010 ROC Update

[peet]

My understanding (could be wrong i s'pose) is that the USFA is trying to plan for the day when NAC entrance will be much more restricted than it is now. If the sport grows much bigger, it'll have to be. (some might say we've already reached that point)

Colorado will simply not be able to run NACs with 600 people per event. I don't think I'd really want to fence in an event that gargantuan anyway. So, with 100,000 fencers in the US, we'll have to limit entry to NACs waaay more than we already do. Then we'll have a huge majority of the fencing population stuck in their local tournaments with no smooth path to advance to national competition.

In order to grow to any great degree, the sport will need a system of tournaments layered between local and NAC to provide that path. To attract competitors and achieve legitimacy as a developmental/qualifying path to NACs, these tournaments will need to be just as consistent, well run, and well officiated as a current NAC (well, pretty close anyway). They'll also need to be just as "official", in the sense that they'll need a set of operational guidelines, rules, standards, etc that all of them adhere to, enforced by the national organization.

These tournaments would be run under the authority of the USFA, but not BY the USFA. I don't think it would be a good idea to grow the Colorado office to the size necessary to run tons of mid-level competitions. Much better to delegate that to tournament organizers around the country who already do a great job running a large sub-NAC tournament.

Now, when it comes time that fencing has grown to that degree, will we be able to just spark that middle tier of tournaments into existence between one season and the next? Of course not. Such a thing will take years to develop, just like the growth itself. This is a chicken and egg question: Do we need these competitions if fencing grows, or do we need them in order for fencing to grow? Both, of course. Which comes first? The chicken or the egg? Fortunately, in this case, the "egg" has already been "laid" by the various big sub-NACs we already have (PdT, Duel, CBO, etc.).

Sure, ROCs only qualify the top 10% to Div1A, which some folks don't see as a incentive to travel and compete. What about if/when the USFA makes it a requirement to fence in at least 2 ROCs in the last 12 months before you are eligible to fence in a NAC? (This is just a guess of course, but one whose similarity to the RYC/SYC system I chose on purpose).

Or perhaps the USFA will apply some other additional official role to the ROCs. National points? Qualification to Div1 nationals? International eligibility? Who knows?

The point is, one day these mid-level regional competitions will have a much larger role in the upward competitive path in US fencing, but we can't just dump all that responsibility on a group of tournaments that are still too uneven in size, quality, organizational practices, general maturity, etc.

Baby steps....

-p

[dberke]

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.

So if there was more transparency in how SYCs were chosen, you would be ok with the system? One club will ultimately get chosen over another, even if the process is completely transparent.

Do you object to the whole concept of the USFA "designating" events such as SYCs and ROCs, regardless of the goals of such events, because it gives one organizer an "unfair advantage" over another? That seems like it would be a separate issue from whether the ROC program has a reason to exist.

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.

I agree, the fact that there is now money in fencing as a business, and the fact that you have so many clubs in such close proximity, combine to cause problems like we see in NJ. But I would suggest that finding a solution is the job of the NJ Division, not the USFA. Whether that solution is to agree on some kind of rotation schedule, or have the tournaments run by an independent third party, etc... I don't know, but what they have clearly isn't working.

I think actually the folks in NJ can learn a lot from other divisions, rather than the other way around. Other divisions seem to have reconciled the issues.

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.

Perhaps this is true in your area, but I don't think it's universal. There are clubs that function as 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporations. They aren't trying to build an empire, but rather simply cover the expenses needed to enable their members to fence.

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.

Give me an example of a logically sound decision by the USFA that you applauded them for.

The posted goal is nonsense.

In your opinion.

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.).

I agree with you to some degree, and I think they are doing things in the areas that they can. For example, they offer coaches training through the Coache's College. The FOC provides referee training. They have been working on providing the club resource kit (mentioned in a different thread, I think) and marketing materials.

What specific resources would you want that that they aren't currently providing that they have knowledge of? I don't know if the USFA should be responsible for teaching people how to run a business in general - that's not their job. Some would argue they can't even run their own business, so what could they offer the clubs?

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.

And let those club owners who understand how to run a business succeed, and those who don't, fail.

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

Not if they wouldn't volunteer to do something else. I think it's pointless to debate this because it is so speculative.

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?

Last year's NOCs were poorly advertised, so the data from those may not be very representitive. They've made some changes and are doing a better job of promoting the ROC circuit this season, so I think this season should be the benchmark.

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.

You seem so overly concerned with the free market in fencing. I think it's been proven that some governmental regulation of most free markets is a good thing. (If you disagree with that, well, let's not even bother continuing this discussion.) The unregulated free market seems to lead to disasters like credit-default swaps and the NJ Division...

Dan

[Jason]

Dan,
Your post is all over the place. Unfortunately, you still don't actually understand the arguments I'm making.

Taking arguments about the problems with the ROC idea and straying off into ramblings about the SYCs, how to better run a division, whether I should be a cheerleader, and your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "regulation" does nothing to further the case for ROCs or answer any of my criticisms.

The problem with your arguments parallel those generally presented in favor of the ROC idea: they lack coherence.

Since no one else is engaged in this conversation in this thread, however, I'll withdraw. After all, when the only one in the room agreeing with you is Inq, you're probably at the wrong party.

[dberke]

Dan,
Your post is all over the place. Unfortunately, you still don't actually understand the arguments I'm making.

Taking arguments about the problems with the ROC idea and straying off into ramblings about the SYCs, how to better run a division, whether I should be a cheerleader, and your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "regulation" does nothing to further the case for ROCs or answer any of my criticisms.

The problem with your arguments parallel those generally presented in favor of the ROC idea: they lack coherence.

Since no one else is engaged in this conversation in this thread, however, I'll withdraw. After all, when the only one in the room agreeing with you is Inq, you're probably at the wrong party.

Perhaps your argument isn't as clear or coherent as you think it is.

Regardless, I doubt we'll ever agree. Which is fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Enjoy not going to any ROCs.

Dan

[Inquartata]

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.

Except the debateable one of possible qualification to Div 1-A.

I already go to Duel in the Desert, for instance, because it's a usually a fairly strong event ( some years more than others ). Should I manage to qualify for Div 1-A there, splendid, it means that I don't have to spend a not inconsiderable amount of money to go to Sectionals to fence 6 people to qualify that way. I suppose one could look at that as a modest incentive...and for those who have better prospects of making the top 4 than I do, a slightly stronger incentive, if they also come from a Section whose qualifiers are usually both remote and thinly attended.

However, you'll note that I already said that I don't really think the ROC designation adds much of an advantage to what are already strong, well-run events. Certainly not enough to compensate for forcing them to drop their mixed events...

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

Feeeeelings...
Wo, wo, wo
Feeeeelings...

Cough. Sorry about that. Back to the serious debate...

To most people posting here, honestly, "meaningful" means "used for team selection."

Maybe that warrants a poll. Personally I'd have to vote "no" should one appear.

Oh, very well, we all know that I would vote "the poll is flawed". But I still don't agree with that thesis. To me, "meaningful" would be something closer to "strong enough competition to prove challenging and maybe permit you to learn something, not so overwhelmingly strong that you get blown out of the water and get little or nothing out of the experience".

To the Lost Generation, maybe a meaningful event is one that combines a professional environment, a large turnout, and the illusion of progress.

See, as a Veteran I have that team-selection event available to me; but I still consider events like Div 1-A "meaningful", for the reasons stated above. They are not just large but ( in my frame of reference, if not in that of those who "matter" ) strong, and they offer opportunities to pick up new tools and hone old ones. Not inconsequentially, it is an event to fence in the sometimes long stretch between arrival at Nationals and ones own main event. One gets itchy.

Apparently, others do, too---witness the names in this year's field, which in sabre included Oiuyt, Dan Berliner, Andrew Hull, Will Spear and Ewan Douglas, all of whom are on the Senior NRP list and competitive in "team selection" events.

Now, maybe they were just there to renew their As or something. But still.

As far as ROCs go, hey, one is in Vegas.

What about if/when the USFA makes it a requirement to fence in at least 2 ROCs in the last 12 months before you are eligible to fence in a NAC?

If that's planned, it's a horrible idea. "Hey, you have to go spend large amounts of money there and there before we deign to allow you to spend a large amount of money here." WTF?

Maybe the USFA can get away with that with kids, but I am not sure adults will stand for it.

If they try it, maybe they can call the scheme Stay Away and Don't Play...

[tchwojko]

If that's planned, it's a horrible idea. "Hey, you have to go spend large amounts of money there and there before we deign to allow you to spend a large amount of money here." WTF?

Maybe the USFA can get away with that with kids, but I am not sure adults will stand for it.

If they try it, maybe they can call the scheme Stay Away and Don't Play...

I don't see two as a huge hurdle. Going to the one ROC event in your home Region, and then travelling to one other, doesn't seem so bad.

Even if you don't like that particular restriction, I think peet was just giving an example of a way to keep National numbers from getting out of hand. Some sort of weeding will have to keep the Nationals numbers down as the fencing population grows.

I agree with the rest of your post.

[Inquartata]

Some sort of weeding will have to keep the Nationals numbers down as the fencing population grows.

We've had this debate here many times, but at the risk of starting it up again, I have to ask: Why?

I mean, if the US health care system---which already has about a 30% shortage of doctors---can nevertheless handle an additional 45 million patients, as we are so blithely being assured, then surely the USFA can handle any number of additional fencers. And it will be able to do so whilst lowering its costs at the same time!

The laws of supply and demand have been repealed, in case you hadn't heard.

[Soberin]

We've had this debate here many times, but at the risk of starting it up again, I have to ask: Why?

I mean, if the US health care system---which already has about a 30% shortage of doctors---can nevertheless handle an additional 45 million patients, as we are so blithely being assured, then surely the USFA can handle any number of additional fencers. And it will be able to do so whilst lowering its costs at the same time!

The laws of supply and demand have been repealed, in case you hadn't heard.

It's not the quantity that's the issue, but the quality. Before we start this again for the umpteenth time, can everyone please go find and read or re-read Kalle's Tournament Task Force report of about 2 years ago, so all of her "scenarios" as she called them regarding regionalization and different qualifying paths are understood? That would give folks a much better idea of where we are going.

[Inquartata]

Pillow is right: Joke at your own peril on f.net. Even the, ah, copious use of emoticons comes a cropper!

[tchwojko]

Pillow is right: Joke at your own peril on f.net. Even the, ah, copious use of emoticons comes a cropper!

Wait, there are times where people take your posts seriously?

[Mission FC]

Jeff Wolfe L.I. Challenge ROC at Mission Fencing Center has been posted on askfred.net

http://askfred.net/Events/moreInfo.p...nament_id=9036

The Regional Open Circuit (ROC) is designed to promote and develop strong regional tournaments for the Open/Division I-A fencer who seeks competitive opportunities beyond the local and sectional level but below the NAC Division I level. Top 10% qualify to Div 1A Nationals, with a minimum of 4 qualfiiers. There will be a season long point standings with the winner being presented with an award at Nationals.

Jeff Wolfe, a longtime coach at Brentwood High School, fenced at New York University. After graduating he became a teacher at Brentwood High School where he began both a Boys' Team and a Girls' Team.
The Girls' Team was the first girls' varsity program on Long Island.

During his tenure (1971- 1998) the Girls' Team had 18 undefeated seasons, 19 League Championships and 18 Sectional Championships. The team set a N. Y. State record winning 98 consecutive dual meets.
Jeff Wolfe's W-L record at Brentwood was 388-14.

Eight of his fencers became collegiate All- Americans

Four represented the United States in international competition.

In 1987, he was the first recipient of the NFCAA Regional Coach Of the Year Award

In 1988 he was named to coach the US Cadet Team at the Continental Cadet Championships and the World Cadet Championships.

He continues to coach as an assistant at Ward Melville High School.

In 2006 the Long Island Division of the USFA announced that beginning in 2007 it would give a Coach Of the Year Award named the "Jeff Wolfe Coach Of the Year Award"

Registration Fee: $15
Event Fee: $45

Events Scheduled:
Div 1A Senior Women's Epee 4/11 10:30am
Div 1A Senior Women's Foil 4/10 12:30pm
Div 1A Senior Women's Saber 4/11 12:30pm
Div 1A Senior Men's Epee 4/10 9:00am
Div 1A Senior Men's Foil 4/11 9:00am
Div 1A Senior Men's Saber 4/10 10:30am

Please check back as we will update information leading up to the event. (Host Hotel, point of interest, vendors/sevices, etc.)

Preregistration opens on 07/29/2009.
Preregistration closes on 04/02/2010.
Triple Fees open on 04/03/2010 & close on 04/08/2010
Refunds must be requested by 04/02/2010.
Registration Fee is non refundable.

Thank you,
Mission FC

[teacup]

What if the winner of a ROC qualifies for the Div I championships?

(Though I believe all tournaments should be ranked by strength factors, as is done for letter rankings, rather than designated USFA tournaments. The winner of a Div I strength level tournament would qualify for Div I Championships.)

[fdad]

What if the winner of a ROC qualifies for the Div I championships?

That would be somewhat consistent with Div 1A at SN where the top 8 qualify for the next season's Div 1 and Div 1A Championship.

[Inquartata]

Wait, there are times where people take your posts seriously?

Define "times", "people" and "seriously".