Extremely Early Entry Deadlines for NACs

[Jason]

The lead time is a compromise. The TC needs *accurate* numbers to make a decent schedule, while fencers want to know the schedule in order to book their travel far enough out to get halfway decent fares. The long lead time for entries allows for both.

(I define a "decent" schedule as one in which the fencing can be completed by 7:00-7:30 pm, rather than 9:00 or 10:00 pm. It's better for both the referees and for the fencers if officials don't have to work 12- or 14-hour days.)

Mary

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but I suspect that the change in NAC entry deadlines has more to do with a desire on the part of the USFA to increase the number of triple-fee entries.

It has already been made clear that there has been a decrease in the number of triple fees being paid over the past year. It has also been made clear that the USFA needs people to pay triple fees as part of the regular stream of revenue. An easy "solution" to that problem would seem to be to make all of the NAC entries a month earlier than usual.

Although, considering the economic climate--and possible resentment from members who might feel like the USFA is trying to take advantage of them--I wonder if this plan won't backfire and simply result in fewer entries.

Regardless, I find the whole thing distasteful.

[dcrocket]

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but I suspect that the change in NAC entry deadlines has more to do with a desire on the part of the USFA to increase the number of triple-fee entries.

Perhaps???

[TBean]

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical,

Yes

but I suspect that the change in NAC entry deadlines has more to due with a desire on the part of the USFA to increase the number of triple-fee entries.

It has already been made clear that there has been a decrease in the number of triple fees being paid over the past year. It has also been made clear that the USFA needs people to pay triple fees as part of the regular stream of revenue. An "easy" solution to that problem would seem to be to make all of the NAC entries a month earlier than usual.

Except that the USFA is making its membership well aware of the fact that they have moved up the deadline - they emailed me for the last one telling me the deadline was upon us. If the goal was to truly raise revenue through triple fees they would not tell anyone. Like credit cards with penalty warnings in itty-bitty, tiny, tiny print on the back of your statement in color of ink impossible to read.

Perhaps when the USFA did its budget, like many non-profits, they based their revenue projections for the NAC's on what had been brought in the previous year without really analyzing how the money was coming in - ie: regular fees v. triple fees. If you had several years of steady growth - both in terms of # of participants and revenue generated - you might just assume some modest level of growth and be done with it, history is on your side. Like many non-profits, the USFA might not really look at each individual event until they see an issue of declining revenue without a clear-cut explanation. When you truly begin to break-down the revenue streams for each NAC you might then discover that your budget assumptions were not valid in terms of the actual growth. Counting on income from late fees is a bad budget assumption - while there will always be some - it is better to be conservative and surprised, than aggressive and scrambling to make ends meet.

I am not saying that USFA cannot or should not do this do this work for the NAC, but did they do it before they were forced to because of decreasing income and needing to figure out why. The probability of the analysis happening when the numbers of fencers was not decreasing is low or if there was a sharp dip in the number of fencers at an NAC, you go with the easy answer. Ultimately my hypothesis is as much a guess as yours, I'm just being less cynical due to my background with non-profits, and knowing how many of them operate when there is too much work to do with not enough people to do it.

[Jason]

Counting on income from late fees is a bad budget assumption

True. But it's an assumption that USFA has already admitted that it makes.

I'm not under the impression that the USFA has done a very good job of advertising the change in deadlines. Many of the NYC area fencers I've talked to about it have been taken by surprise. (I doubt the e-mail newsletter is that widely read. Not to mention that the last one was sent out only a few days before the Nov. NAC deadline.)

Even if increasing triple fees isn't the actual goal, it can very easily look like it is. I would suggest (and, in fact, I did, in an email to the USFA) that rather than triple-fees, a much smaller increase is added for those registering late, but around the time of the old deadline. That would be an effective way to inform the membership of the change, without it seeming like something fishy was going on. Then, next season, starting triple-fees so early would be more palatable because you could assume that everyone had a good idea of the change in dates.

[Redblade]

It's merely a scheduling refinement.

Reminds me of Goldilocks, looking to sneak into a bear-wrestling competition with the least amount of trouble for herself -- "This entry deadline is too late ... this entry deadline is too early ... "

[mdstasinos]

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but I suspect that the change in NAC entry deadlines has more to do with a desire on the part of the USFA to increase the number of triple-fee entries.

It has already been made clear that there has been a decrease in the number of triple fees being paid over the past year. It has also been made clear that the USFA needs people to pay triple fees as part of the regular stream of revenue. An easy "solution" to that problem would seem to be to make all of the NAC entries a month earlier than usual.

Although, considering the economic climate--and possible resentment from members who might feel like the USFA is trying to take advantage of them--I wonder if this plan won't backfire and simply result in fewer entries.

Regardless, I find the whole thing distasteful.

This is as far from the truth as you can get. The purpose for the 2 month window has many purposes:
1. To have time to create a schedule so the fencers have a greater window to purchase travel.
2. With the old system we had in many cases less that three weeks once the numbers came in to adjust for the Competitions.
3. Because of the short window, it created difficulties if the number of competitors increased in additional equipment, staff and referees being hired last minute at a huge cost. If the numbers were less than projected then, again, it created a overage of staff, shipped equipment and referees which can be very costly.
4. It ends the AM and PM projected registration times and gives concrete registration times again helping those who are making travel arrangements.
5. It allows a greater opportunity to workout and problems with individual registration or information. With the short window, competitors would show up at the competition and have to clear up the problem before the event or be scratched. With the greater window many of those problems can be sorted and dealt with before arriving at the competition.

Never was the discussion to move to the two month window for the purpose of collecting of triple fees. Yes, triple fees went down last year for the fact the fencers, as well as everybody else, had to tighten their belts. It made the fencers pay attention to the deadlines and to register on time. I have no doubt that trend will continue.

Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association

[teacup]

Moving the deadline earlier means that the close of check in times are able to be posted earlier. Last year some of these times weren't posted until less than two weeks before the tournament. Although people are told not to fly out the same day, the reality is many do. An early close of check in can mean that people can make a late flight home. (Especially this season with no more repechage.) Therefore having to wait to buy air and confirm hotel two weeks before the event, is just too late.

The change also means that the posting of close of check in times is closer to when THS returns their room blocks. Many people book more rooms for longer periods of time than needed, paring down nights after check in times are posted. This meant that the USFA ended up with fewer rooms booked through THS than anticipated.

Moving the deadline to Monday, means that fencers get the two extra weekend days to register. When deadlines were Friday, the entries just sat at the office over the weekend, not giving the tournament committee accurate numbers until Tuesday anyway to determine times, so the deadline might as well be Monday.

I would suggest moving the date until Tuesday, when the Monday is a holiday, such as occurred for the NAC B deadline and Labor Day Weekend.

Allowances could have been made for registration fees while easing into the new earlier dates. Perhaps, as someone suggested, the week after the initial deadline being only slightly more, not triple. Especially with the first deadlines being over the summer.

A big note in the biggest font possible in the middle of the USFA website, stating the deadline date, might have helped inform members.

[TBean]

I'm not under the impression that the USFA has done a very good job of advertising the change in deadlines. Many of the NYC area fencers I've talked to about it have been taken by surprise. (I doubt the e-mail newsletter is that widely read. Not to mention that the last one was sent out only a few days before the Nov. NAC deadline.).

That people don't read their email is USFA's fault how? I did receive more than one email on the subject, and one was well before the first NAC deadline. Given that faxing an entry is an option a few days before the deadline is enough time for someone to deal with the situation. My club has been aware for quite sometime, and has also done its part to make athletes aware of the fact as well - especially the cadets and juniors. I am also quite sure the announcement was on the USFA website, and really very clear on the printable schedule for national events when entries were due.

In what other ways should the organization have tried to make its membership aware of the change in deadline? They did their bit. In the end it is not the USFA's fault if people do not pay attention.

Even if increasing triple fees isn't the actual goal, it can very easily look like it is. I would suggest (and, in fact, I did, in an email to the USFA) that rather than triple-fees, a much smaller increase is added for those registering late, but around the time of the old deadline. That would be an effective way to inform the membership of the change, without it seeming like something fishy was going on. Then, next season, starting triple-fees so early would be more palatable because you could assume that everyone had a good idea of the change in dates.

Again, I honestly believe that you are assigning motive where it does not exist. If I miss an entry deadline it is my own fault, I was given warning and made aware of the fact that there was a change - I don't assume the USFA is deliberately trying to profit from my mistake. A year's worth of grace is excessive. Is it a total drag and a pain that for the earliest NACs you are dealing with it over the summer when lots of folks are focusing on their tan - sure - but deal with it, life is like that.

[Allen Evans]

Jason:

Overly cynical, I think.

For the last several years, as the fencing population has gotten younger and younger, there has been increasing pressure on the USFA to announce locations, dates and fencing times as early as possible. This is especially true with the younger fencers and their parents, who often plan their entire season out in advance (not to say that older fencers don't do this as well, but most of the complaints I've heard have come from parents). I suspect that one of the reasons deadlines were pushed forward was to "fix" the number of fencers attending as early as possible to allow the staff to set days and time for events much earlier than they have previously. This also lets the organizers plan for referees much more efficiently, especially as the pool of referees have fallen due to the USFA budget/payment issues.

While I have over heard discussions about the drop in triple fees being paid, this has always been discussed (around me, at least) as a consequence of the economic climate more than anything else. The triple fee figure has always been factored into the budget/revenue stream, but I don't think that this is the same as "the USFA needs people to pay triple fees".

Finally, I would say that the information about early deadlines was communicated to the membership as well as the USFA communicates most information, which is to say unevenly and not always very effectively.

Of course, I can't deny that a failure to properly communicate and publicly justify a deadline change would not look any different from a conspiracy to get extra revenue from the membership. But, based on past patterns of behavior, the former seems more likely than the latter.

(edit: I see an official response has already beaten mine. Never-the-less, I'll let this post stand).

[Jason]

The purpose for the 2 month window has many purposes:

Mark,
Thanks for responding. As I mentioned above, whether or not an increase in revenue was the motivation for the scheduling change, it is very easy--particularly considering how cash-conscious many people are these days--for members to have these kinds of suspicions.

The purposes you stated all seem like good ones, but the way the change in deadlines has been put forward will certainly lead to doubts and resentment amongst some of the membership.

I personally haven't competed at a NAC in years, so I don't really care when the deadlines are. However, many of my students are skipping NACs they would have otherwise gone to because when they go to register for an event weeks in advance, they discover that they suddenly have to pay three-times what they would have paid at the same time last year.

Is it an attempt to get more money from the membership? Is it a poorly communicated change in scheduling? It really doesn't matter because it still results in negative feelings toward the USFA and some fencers skipping events.

Allowances could have been made for registration fees while easing into the new earlier dates. Perhaps, as someone suggested, the week after the initial deadline being only slightly more, not triple. Especially with the first deadlines being over the summer.

This is what I mentioned above, and I think it's the only reasonable way to transition to the new deadline without compromising goodwill and hurting attendance.

[Fendi]

(Especially this season with no more repechage.)

Did they change the NAC format for this season?

[oiuyt]

(Especially this season with no more repechage.)

Did they change the NAC format for this season?

Yes.

Repêchage was eliminated from all national events which had it last year (foil and epee at the cadet/junior/D1 levels at NACs).

-B

[Fendi]

Yes.

Repêchage was eliminated from all national events which had it last year (foil and epee at the cadet/junior/D1 levels at NACs).

-B

Wow. Thanks Brad. What was the rationale for doing so? I love repechage.

[oiuyt]

Wow. Thanks Brad. What was the rationale for doing so? I love repechage.

There were probably a number of rationales.

It was a decision of the National Coaches.

-B

[telkanuru]

1. To have time to create a schedule so the fencers have a greater window to purchase travel.
2. With the old system we had in many cases less that three weeks once the numbers came in to adjust for the Competitions.
3. Because of the short window, it created difficulties if the number of competitors increased in additional equipment, staff and referees being hired last minute at a huge cost. If the numbers were less than projected then, again, it created a overage of staff, shipped equipment and referees which can be very costly.

These three are pretty much the same point, so they get addressed together.

You have enough data to make fairly good guesses at numbers and how things will shake out. I'm sorry, but my division does this with 2 major tournaments every year without a 2-month window. It is simply a matter of scale and competence. You know ME and MF will need 8am starts on different days. You know WS/MS can be placed later in the day and still finish on time. Making a rough day schedule is not rocket surgery.

4. It ends the AM and PM projected registration times and gives concrete registration times again helping those who are making travel arrangements.

You know what else would help this? Basic efficiency in tournament management. Don't let the FOC assigner jaw off for an hour instead of doing his/her job. Assign referees randomly and then fix conflicts by hand. Don't have 1 to 1 1/2 hours down time after close of reg, or between pools and DEs. If you need to double flight pools, don't send out all the 7s in the first wave and then try to double strip the 6s. You don't even have repechage to deal with anymore. There isn't any excuse for any event taking more than 6 or 7 hours.

5. It allows a greater opportunity to workout and problems with individual registration or information. With the short window, competitors would show up at the competition and have to clear up the problem before the event or be scratched. With the greater window many of those problems can be sorted and dealt with before arriving at the competition.

Exactly how many problems with this do we have? If it's very few, then you're just making up reasons. If it's a large quantity, why don't we put the effort into finding out why and fixing THAT.

[parrythis]

As long as the schedule of events for the weekend is published before the entry deadline, it doesn't matter to me when it has to be in.

In fact, the earlier deadline gives me an opportunity to lock in my plans before my "social director" can change them. It also gives me an excuse as to why I'm not going ("Darn! I missed the deadline...") if I really don't want to go.

[oso97]

4. It ends the AM and PM projected registration times and gives concrete registration times again helping those who are making travel arrangements.

Ignoring of course the people who make the decision to attend at ALL based upon AM/PM projected times...

i.e. a Sabre fencer who sees that their event has a Sunday morning start time, and they know they can get on the last plane out, and be at work/school Monday morning. Or a Foilist who sees he has a Saturday start after 10am, and realizes that he can take a late flight in Friday, instead of an earlier flight, not miss work/school and still have time to do equipment check, etc Saturday before his event.

Yea, yea, I know, "the USFA recommends that all competitors plan to arrive the day before their event and leave the day after." But there are many for whom that is not always an option. And I suspect the number of people who skip national events because of these factors is higher than many people would realize. To do a proper analysis though would require a properly worded question in a membership survey, and given the overall hostile attitude to the situation cited above ...

[dekko]

This is as far from the truth as you can get. The purpose for the 2 month window has many purposes:
1. To have time to create a schedule so the fencers have a greater window to purchase travel.

Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association

IF this was true we would have a schedule for all national events right now. I guess this couldn't be further from the truth.

[mdstasinos]

IF this was true we would have a schedule for all national events right now. I guess this couldn't be further from the truth.

The eight week window allow the actual numbers of competitors to be know so the competition schedule can be published in advance. Earlier in the thread someone referred that we could make an educated guess at the numbers of fencers per event at the tournaments and when you hire staff and arrange equipment for that event and the numbers drop 17% in one NAC, that becomes an over expenditure with staff and equipment by thousands and thousands of dollars. Same is true at the opposite. If we project a number and the numbers inflate we could be understaffed and to bring in the equipment and additional staff runs into last minute over expenditures in higher airline tickets for staff, hotel rooms, additional shipping of equipment at higher cost for a shorter window. The 8 week window addresses these issues and keeps us from over expenditure and under resourcing or over resourcing the events.
The fencers benefit for the fact that they can have a concrete schedule earlier with actual times and therefore they can plan and address their travel in a more timely fashion. This is one of the key complaints that came to us in the last year from the competitors that as an organization we address.

Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association

[Inquartata]

Although I am by nature very prone to accept the cynical view of anything the USFA does, especially when it comes to money matters, I am going to align myself with the "This is a good thing" camp this time. ( I have never paid late entry fees and never will, but I like doing things as far in advance as I can anyway, so I fear no early deadlines!

PS See, Mark, I CAN be convinced by your arguments!