Club-Based Sanctioning of Tournaments

[oiuyt]

- Weaker Divisions. Sanctioning gave divisions a big stick in order to get the necessary work done. Qualifiers, at least in my area, tend to be unprofitable competitions. In some years, the division has granted a club additional competitions if it agreed to host a qualifier event. Also, by controlling sanctioning, the division could ensure that the qualifier was scheduled before clubs could ask for their events.

If this rule is passed, we could see more divisions unable to run the required qualifier events.

Could you expand on this?

Why are qualifier tournaments run at a loss while non-qualifiers are a source of profit?

Qualifiers have significantly higher price inelasticity available to them. What, if any, requirements that increase costs do they have that standard tournaments do not?

Is it merely a scale thing that they get so few entries they cannot run profitably? On the local level, most costs scale roughly linearly with the combined field size, with the possible exception of venue cost (note that this does not always hold as events get larger than those typically found at the local level and certainly does not hold for national-level events).

-B

[noodle]

Could you expand on this?

Why are qualifier tournaments run at a loss while non-qualifiers are a source of profit?

Qualifiers have significantly higher price inelasticity available to them. What, if any, requirements that increase costs do they have that standard tournaments do not?

Is it merely a scale thing that they get so few entries they cannot run profitably? On the local level, most costs scale roughly linearly with the combined field size, with the possible exception of venue cost (note that this does not always hold as events get larger than those typically found at the local level and certainly does not hold for national-level events).

-B

the only thing that is demanded to be different, off the top of my head, is the referee requirement. (thats still in, right? a 5?)

thats not really that different from any standard well-run event, but it could be considered different from smaller ones.

[Wafath]

Could you expand on this?

Why are qualifier tournaments run at a loss while non-qualifiers are a source of profit?

Keep in mind that I am in Capitol division, which is one of the smallest (geographically) divisions.

A profitable open almost always has members of neighboring divisions. Qualifiers can not.

An open can have broader categories for fewer events. (ie, you can have a single weekend event consisting of a mixed open for each weapon, each of which could reach the "critical mass" to get people on the fence to attend. (some people will only sign up for an event if they think it will potentially be a C1/B1/A1/whatever.). Qualifiers almost never achieve this in my division.)

Qualifiers have many categories which must be fenced out, and must have qualified refs for. For example, you could have cases where the total number of sabre entrants requires a ref, but we don't have enough income to pay the official.

Other factors can contribute, but the first two are the biggest factors... by limiting who can fence in the competition, it ends up being uninteresting to anyone except those who must qualify.

[mfp]

Qualifiers have significantly higher price inelasticity available to them. What, if any, requirements that increase costs do they have that standard tournaments do not?

A USFA requirement that qualifiers have which local standard tournaments don't which can increase costs is strip size. Stricter requirements for quals are called out in the Ops Manual. That can mean many club venues usable for local events can't be used for quals. At least in divisions that pay attention to the rule. Fewer options can sometimes result in higher direct or indirect costs.

[mgriff]

Could you expand on this?

Why are qualifier tournaments run at a loss while non-qualifiers are a source of profit?

-B

In some very small divisions, there may only be enough entries (more than 3) in one or two events, either because most competitive fencers are auto qualifiers or because there are few fencers in other age and weapon categories.

During my four years as Mountain Valley division chair, it was common to have to run only two or three of the possible 12 JO qualifying events. The rest had only three or fewer entries, and even those we ran often had only four or five competitors. The entry fees barely covered the expenses.

In such small divisions, by the way, club sanctioning would work quite well. Mountain Valley has been one of the "clubs just send their tournament info to the division to publish" divisions where it's hard to get a quorum for the annual meeting or to dragoon people to serve as division officers. Scheduling qualifiers (but not actually running them--clubs do that) is essentially the division's only function.

Mary

[jjefferies]

Could you expand on this?

Why are qualifier tournaments run at a loss while non-qualifiers are a source of profit?

Qualifiers have significantly higher price inelasticity available to them. What, if any, requirements that increase costs do they have that standard tournaments do not?

Is it merely a scale thing that they get so few entries they cannot run profitably? On the local level, most costs scale roughly linearly with the combined field size, with the possible exception of venue cost (note that this does not always hold as events get larger than those typically found at the local level and certainly does not hold for national-level events).
-B

OIUYT, I'll have to agree with Wafath's comments about the profitability of qualifiers. My Division at 351 fencers is not probably not among the smallest but running a qualifier generally counts as "good works" by the host club as opposed to a money making activity. Consider that a Bay Cup tournament with between 20-30 fencers at each of two separate events is worth between $800-$1200 for a club. Versus a qualifier with between 5-25 fencers at each event (out of 12 qualifying events for SN last season only 2 had 20-25 contestants). And for the club the amount of effort is very comparable.

Keep in mind that I am in Capitol division, which is one of the smallest (geographically) divisions.

A profitable open almost always has members of neighboring divisions. Qualifiers can not.

An open can have broader categories for fewer events. (ie, you can have a single weekend event consisting of a mixed open for each weapon, each of which could reach the "critical mass" to get people on the fence to attend. (some people will only sign up for an event if they think it will potentially be a C1/B1/A1/whatever.). Qualifiers almost never achieve this in my division.)

Qualifiers have many categories which must be fenced out, and must have qualified refs for. For example, you could have cases where the total number of sabre entrants requires a ref, but we don't have enough income to pay the official.

Other factors can contribute, but the first two are the biggest factors... by limiting who can fence in the competition, it ends up being uninteresting to anyone except those who must qualify.

Another concern that I have is the uncertainty of the impact of this proposal on the Bay Cup Series. At present the three sister Divisions have worked out a fairly reasonable arrangement for pooling resources. It has resulted in an excellent training series for our fencers, encouraged clubs to improve their tournaments and use more rated directors. But it is a delicate set of compromises which in part are built on the Divisions being the sanctioning entities. Remove that and will the series survive? An unknown as the Divisions then will become little more than a shell for qualifying fencers to the national events.

[telkanuru]

I've said this before, but under the current system there is at least a reason for clubs to meet and try to hash out a mutual schedule; with this change there is none.

[mfp]

Another concern that I have is the uncertainty of the impact of this proposal on the Bay Cup Series. At present the three sister Divisions have worked out a fairly reasonable arrangement for pooling resources. It has resulted in an excellent training series for our fencers, encouraged clubs to improve their tournaments and use more rated directors. But it is a delicate set of compromises which in part are built on the Divisions being the sanctioning entities. Remove that and will the series survive? An unknown as the Divisions then will become little more than a shell for qualifying fencers to the national events.

Your concerns about "uncertainty" and the Bay Cup possibly being adversely affected by such a sanctioning system are odd, considering that at least one (if not two) of the three Bay Cup "sister" divisions pretty much already operate that way.

[jjefferies]

Your concerns about "uncertainty" and the Bay Cup possibly being adversely affected by such a sanctioning system are odd, considering that at least one (if not two) of the three Bay Cup "sister" divisions pretty much already operate that way.

I'm guessing you mean Mtn Valley which effectively consists of how many clubs? If Stanford wants to hold a saber tournament on the same date as one in Sacramento. What's going to happen to the Sacramento event? You'll get your own fencers and maybe not that. I can easily see a scenario where we go back to the old system where the fencing scene is dominated by a few big clubs (most likely in SF or Silicon Valley) which I don't think is healthy for the sport or the fencers. What's odd about being concerned about that? And I don't follow the policies in Mtn Valley or CenCal but NorCal is pretty laissez fair. You send a request to the Division Secretary who sends out an e-mail to the EC saying sanctioning is requested for this event, the date, location, prizes and if there are no objections the event is sanctioned. It's understood if there are objections then there will have to be a vote. I don't see how the system can be any freer.

Which brings me back to the Proposal. If it ain't broke why replace it? And going by earlier posts in over 80% of the country it works. If you want to fix the 8-10 problems a year then why not improve the communications and oversight from the national to the divisions?

[mfp]

I'm guessing you mean Mtn Valley which effectively consists of how many clubs?

No, CenCal.

MtnVal might operate in a simliar way as well, but to find out, we'd have to find someone who openly admits to being a USFA officer of the MtnValley division

If any club wants to hold an event in CenCal and agrees to "follow the USFA rules" they'll get sanctioned. And there's no USFA or CenCal division rule saying that they can't run an event on the same day as another event in the CenCal (or NorCal or MtnVal) division. It might or might not be wise for a host to run an event on certain dates (e.g. opposite a Bay Cup event), but that's for them to work out, not something for the division officers to decree or for their competitors to vote on for them.

While CenCal has been using a permissive sanctioning approach for several years, that doesn't mean chaos has resulted. Hosts in the division seem to understand that if they screw up and run an event that departed from the rules in a significant way, then sanctioning for the event will get pulled and any classification changes for the event wouldn't be submitted.

but NorCal is pretty laissez fair. You send a request to the Division Secretary who sends out an e-mail to the EC saying sanctioning is requested for this event, the date, location, prizes and if there are no objections the event is sanctioned. It's understood if there are objections then there will have to be a vote. I don't see how the system can be any freer.

Isn't NorCal the division that withheld sanctioning of an event because because the event was within two weeks of another?

[jjefferies]

Isn't NorCal the division that withheld sanctioning of an event because because the event was within two weeks of another?

No Mike. There was a guideline to separate tournaments by a ?week? at one time but it was voted out some years ago.

Still I think it is a reasonable thing. If a club has planned an event, gone to some expense and effort then why allow another else put another event of the same type on the same date? And yes there are people who would do that. Is that going to help the sport or the fencers to have a lot of small competing events?

[hello?]

I've said this before, but under the current system there is at least a reason for clubs to meet and try to hash out a mutual schedule; with this change there is none.

I totally agree. (It also creates camaraderie for National events, where people from the different clubs cheer for each other because they feel they are part of a common 'something.') Even with strong personalities, the New England Division manages (for the most part) to work things out -- and we are only slightly smaller (I think) than the New Jersey division. Of course, last I checked, there were no lawyers in our Board. : )

[gatun.czone]

Question about how the division will earn any money without division sanctioning ~ Right now in Harrisburg, if it is a club tournament, the club gets 75% and the division gets 25%. It is the opposite for division tournaments (which are only the JO qualifier and summer national qualifiers). So if sanctioning is done by the club, how will the division earn money?

I'm not sure if the way Harrisburg does the sanctioning money is the norm or the exception. How do other divisions handle it? How do you foresee your division handling it if you no longer sanction the tournaments?

Thanks for your patience with all my questions.

Nannette

[gatun.czone]

As long as their qualifiers don't lose money, why do divisions need extra money?

Here in Harrisburg we are planning on replacing scoring equipment, paying for a ref clinic and paying refs who help with our qualifiers.
Nannette

[ysbadadden]

The problem is that if you say "any club can sanction its own event" there is no way to avoid things like conflicting events. If Club A wants to run its event on Popular Date Y, and so does Club B, how does that get resolved? Even if you set up a timeline, how would that force either club to give up its desired date? You'd have to put it up for vote among more clubs than just those two...which is in essence what happens (should happen) now at Division meetings -- BECAUSE the Division decides what to sanction.

I'm assuming that in the long run, tournament organizers will be rational actors. If Clubs A and B both want to run their tournaments on popular date Y, they may both calculate that they can do it successfully (for example, if they are geographically far apart, or if Club A's event has a specialized appeal), or one or the other may decide to back down and reschedule. Why should it matter very much in the long run?

It seems as though it is an all or nothing as far as sanctioning. Is there any division doing something between a tournament committee and the clubs doing their own thing?
Nannette

Sure: NY-Metro meets only to hash out scheduling conflicts, not to invent rules about what kinds of events are worthy.

I've said this before, but under the current system there is at least a reason for clubs to meet and try to hash out a mutual schedule; with this change there is none.

The reason for clubs to meet and hash out a schedule is that it's rational. This reason remains even if there is no committee with veto power.

Having said this, there's no reason that a division couldn't have power to resolve scheduling conflicts. The important thing is that there should be national standards for sanctioning, and sanctioning should not be witheld on grounds other than failure to meet the standards (plus, if you will, scheduling conflicts).

Can we agree that we need a national standard?

The proposed process for challenging the sanctioning of events -- the appeals procedure -- seems cumbersome, but something like it is probably necessary.

[mfp]

Still I think it is a reasonable thing. If a club has planned an event, gone to some expense and effort then why allow another else put another event of the same type on the same date? And yes there are people who would do that.

Yes, there are people who might do that.

Some might do it for pretty rational reasons -- e.g. a club in the southern part of CenCal, a 3+ hour drive away, who can only get their venue on certain dates should be able to decide for themselves if a date will work for them for their desired 3W event vs be told they can't include epee as a sanctioned part of it because some club up north, maybe even over the northern division line and in Oakland planned on running an epee event too.

Then there's the boogeymen clubs some seem to be afraid of who they'd think would run an event out of spite or malice. We haven't seen that. Nor do I really expect we will since anyone contemplating it soon realizes the costs and hassle of actually doing it. They'd be faced with cost of running the event, the competition for entries, the cost to their reputations, etc.

Note that it's far cheaper for a club owner to try to screw with a rival via a division committee than it would be for them to actually put on an event out of spite.

[teacup]

Here in Harrisburg we are planning on replacing scoring equipment, paying for a ref clinic and paying refs who help with our qualifiers.
Nannette

Paying for refs would be included in the costs of running qualifiers of which I stated as long as running qualifiers isn't at a loss.

Replacing equipment and ref clinics are good specific goals. My point is that divisions don't have to be huge money generating organizations.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I'm assuming that in the long run, tournament organizers will be rational actors.

I think that most people will act rationally, especially in divisions in which this process already works.

But I think it somewhat likely that in divisions in which this doesn't work, at least a few clubs will NOT act rationally. The question is whether those clubs have the resources to do so without destroying themselves--- if they do..... this may go horribly in a few places.

[flechewounds]

Again, underlying all of this are the facts that:

(a) certain divisions and divisional politics have been used to drive advantages to some and disadvantages to others - either through direct manipulation, unreasonable rule sets or outright malfeasance.

(b) this behavior is de facto tolerated by the USFA who doesn't have the cojones to step in and straighten things out in these particular places.

(c) some people within division governance view sanctioning as discretionary "permission" rather than a mechanism to assist private ordering. When this happens, division "friends" often have the advantage in gaining permission at the expense of others.

(d) there is no clear standard as to what is "necessary." In some ways, there are good reasons for this - local conditions differ from place to place. However, there is no reasonable baseline. I suppose that if there was one, and it was below FIE standards, there may be a litigation risk to the USFA in the event of injury, but that is an insurable risk.

(e) the great majority of divisions operate without too much controversy or difficulty. This change will potentially and adversely affect those divisions. However, in the "screw you" divisions, I don't see the benefit. Strong leadership from the USFA (ok, an oxymoron) could address this problem without upsetting the others' apple carts.

So why not be more active at the leadership level? Keep this idea in the back pocket if it remains intractable...

[jjefferies]

Another question, how will this proposal deal with compliance with FIE regulations? Specifically strips. Out of the three divisions that I am familiar with NONE fully comply with FIE standards for strip sizes (ok I haven't been in all of Mtn Valley clubs so this may be an overstatement). The best is probably Stanford/Cardinal but they don't have full runoff. Most but not all have the correct length, but most fail to have the mandated widths. Failure to meet FIE/USFA standards for strips is a safety issue. In the current arrangement I believe there is an escape clause that allows the divisions to accept non-standard strip dimensions to meet local situations - do I phrase that correctly? So how are will the proposed system handle that from the national level? Replace the divisions with committees for compliance with FIE/USFA requirements? Boy is that going to be fun.