Club-Based Sanctioning of Tournaments

[kuroutesshin]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned.

I'm in the Michigan Division, and has represented MSU Fencing before at the tournament planning sessions. A common concern in Michigan at least, and possibly other states with smaller fencing populations or uneven club dispersal is planning far too many high-level tournament, or planning tournaments over other clubs. The Division tries very hard to make sure that on any given weekend, only one club is hosting an event, because "splitting the state," as it were, is a big concern.

For example, Michigan Tech only hosts one tournament per year, and the Division always refuses to schedule another tournament over it because of the drive involved- no one would attend the event because of the distance if they had a closer option, which isn't fair to Tech, and would probably weaken their club.

Similarly, the Division tries to limit the number of opens, because proliferating high-level tournaments distracts for more established events (Like the Excalibur, the Schmitter, the Duelist, etc.). Events would be smaller and fewer ratings would be given out if every other weekend had an open going on. Similarly, the Division makes sure D-under, c-under, and unrated events happen often to spur younger fencers.

Now, what this ruling would mean for Michigan. The system we have in place currently makes sure each club, given its desire, has the chance to hold events without worrying about another club scheduling over them. Giving clubs in Michigan the right to sanction their own events would fracture the Division, meaning lower event attendance and more localization of clubs.

If there are other Michigan fencers with a perspective differing from mine, please let me know if I'm incorrect or you disagree. This is an issue our Division officers have discussed before, the problem of scheduling. I suspect it's similar to discussions in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and possibly even Indiana, but I can't be sure.

[jjefferies]

It's called the Operations Manual, and covers most of the topics available. Unfortunately, most tournament organizers have not read it. .

Or more likely they have read it and concluded that it doesn't answer either their questions or their local situation.

Of course, there are a number of things not covered in there, but it's extremely difficult to cover everything, and I'm sure it will be revised to add requirements for a number of details. A number of items will be discovered later, as various topics come up through the appeals process, and will be incorporated into the sanctioning guidelines explicitly and implicitly just like precedents and laws are amended in the common law tradition.

Well here's a real life problem that has arisen this past weekend. Balestra, a new club in NorCal, has asked for sanctioning of a tournament on October 31 in all three weapons and is offering a winner's purse of USD$500. in each weapon. Unfortunately, the UCB Fencing Club has already requested and received sanctioning for a men's epee D and lower tournament and Men's Foil tournament E and Unrated on the same date. Now the UCB fencers have already committed to getting the space and spent some money arranging for their tournament. In terms of developing fencing, from my perspective, the UCB tournament is very desirable. It's focused on the lower level fencers and providing them with competitive experience. And there is the fact that Balestra is coming in somewhat late not that that matters particularly other than it means that other clubs can't take their proposals into consideration.

Would you as a beginning fencer rather go to a university hosted tournament and fence people your own skill level or would you, being the hairy long armed hard whacking person you are, say hey I'd really prefer a crack at that $500. There are a dozen different arguments here and most of them at cross purposes. Frankly an unrated fencer who enters the Balestra event is going to be fodder for the local sharks and I would argue will learn little in the process.

My response as Division Chair has been to point out that the prior sanctioning should have some deference and ask Balestra to restrict their men's epee event to "C" and above and the men's foil event to "D" and above. As Division Chair I do not have the right to deny them sanctioning. But I can speak with the Executive Committee, made up of representatives from each club, and persuade them.

Frankly I'm happy to accommodate Balestra's proposal and encourage them. It is argumentative as to whether cash prizes is a flash in the pan or a long term trend. But the sport and the division need the developmental culture which the UC tournament will be providing our unrated fencers. Moreover it does no one any good for multiple clubs to be fighting over the same pool of fencers.

In the proposal as made and the environment you seem to prefer I do not see any mechanism to keep clubs from running over one another (inadvertently or purposefully) . BUT I can see them complaining afterwards to the USFA and/or whatever committee mechanism might be put in place.

My expectation is that regional (probably not Division level, that's too close to the involved parties) bodies will be created to arbitrate the appeals and a national commission will handle the appeals of their decisions.

In other words re-invent the divisions/Sections.

This is my expectation of what will happen to Divisions and Sections .. They just won't have a local monopoly on making decisions about the tournament business anymore.

And instead you'll either toss it to the winds or re-invent them. Again the USFA already has a full plate that it's not been able to handle. And now they're going to go down to the club level and try to arbitrate between competing interests? Do you really think they are competent to do that?

[Chafunkta]

I'm from a small division that has few problems with scheduling conflicts and such. But that's mainly because the division officers meet, discuss the schedule, and hammer out something that's got no conflicts.

If the USFA passes this sanctioning thing I know exactly what would happen. We would form a committee of the clubs in the area and discuss when our tournaments would be held so as not to step on each others' feet. But we'd then be forming a... division?

I realize larger divisions have scheduling problems ten fold than what we have, but why would the USFA make this blanket rule for just a few problematic divisions?

[InFerrumVeritas]

I've got a question to throw something else in:

If any club can sanction any event, what's to stop a club from going "Hey, we've got 25 people here, and a handful of D's, so why not make an event?" This wouldn't be fair, as it would practically exclude all fencers who are not currently there. It could also make ratings meaningless (more so than some believe they are now).

Another question: If it's required that all sanctioned tournaments be posted on a division website or in a newsletter, and a division sets itself up to say that only events discussed at an annual planning meeting and agreed upon by all officers and club representatives in attendence will be included in this, isn't that the same thing as the division sanctioning tournaments, but even more inflexible?

[KD5MDK]

I don't believe it is intended that a Division could refuse to publish an event. In fact, I expect that publication on FRED would probably be considered adequate, with some sort of advance notice period (1 month, 2?). Or the USFA website might have a place to put upcoming local events.

[fencerX]

I've got a question to throw something else in:

If any club can sanction any event, what's to stop a club from going "Hey, we've got 25 people here, and a handful of D's, so why not make an event?"

Read the proposed revisions to the Ops Manual that are in the attachment to the first post of this thread. Find the answers to your questions there.