Impact of new calendar on clubs

[KidLazy]

I don't exactly think so. Maybe the dates might not be great, but ultimately, if fencing continues to grow, the Summer Nationals model will no longer be sustainable. I recall some proposed ideas of such sorts were passed around in 2006 at the Atlanta SN. The SNs are getting way too big, so eventually, we have to split the events to other days to make them manageable.

The only option the USFA has is to break this up. And the only break-up that makes sense is to divide based on common factors. We essentially have two cadet/junior national championships every year in the current model. It makes perfect sense to combine the JO and Junior NC events. The remaining breakouts are obvious based on the groups participating in each.

The USFA wants to offer members as much fencing as possible... but at some point you have to deal with the reality of the situation. These are the "good" growing pains that we need to go through if we are going to continue growing our sport.

What makes you think that it will grow, continue to grow, after you separated them? So far I have not yet hear ONE sound logic reason.

There are 3 Million kids, 5 to 19, plays youth soccer in the U.S., so why soccer interest and participation rate in the country is soooooo low?
http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/aboutus...outhSoccer.asp

Fencing clubs (college, private, etc.) often have a large crown starting (first meet, beginner class, etc.), but very few retain. Why?

I also know quite a few families who have adult veteran fencers and children fencers..having a meet with the two of them together is part of the love for these families...under the new plan that will no longer exist.....

Friend & Family traditions and connections, are what kept people to stay, otherwise they will just go somewhere else, like those youth soccer players for example.

Fencing is no different; without support from their friends & families, most people will not retain in fencing. By seperating the events at Summer National, that "Magic" is no more. What makes you think, people will stay in this sport after that? Why won't they just spend the same amount of money to some place actually nice for a real family vacation?

[Allen Evans]

Fencing clubs (college, private, etc.) often have a large crown starting (first meet, beginner class, etc.), but very few retain. Why?

If this is impacted by the National calender, it must be impacted by the current National Calender, not the proposed one, since I doubt new fencer's retention rates are effected by something that hasn't happened yet.

I haven't given a lot of thought to the impact of the proposed calender. But one thing is for sure: if the economic life of my club is based on my fencers attending National Tournaments frequently, then I should probably re think my business model. While aspirations to National competition do impact my club and some of my fencers, National tournaments are not the end all and be all of my club's exsistance and financial health.

Of course, in VA, I have more access to strong regional events than someone in Seattle would. That tends to engage the majority of my fencers. But I know from my experiance in Seattle that a strong club culture is thriving there, even though relatively few of the fencers fence NACs regularly.

[pillow]

If this is impacted by the National calender, it must be impacted by the current National Calender, not the proposed one, since I doubt new fencer's retention rates are effected by something that hasn't happened yet.

I haven't given a lot of thought to the impact of the proposed calender. But one thing is for sure: if the economic life of my club is based on my fencers attending National Tournaments frequently, then I should probably re think my business model. While aspirations to National competition do impact my club and some of my fencers, National tournaments are not the end all and be all of my club's exsistance and financial health.

Of course, in VA, I have more access to strong regional events than someone in Seattle would. That tends to engage the majority of my fencers. But I know from my experiance in Seattle that a strong club culture is thriving there, even though relatively few of the fencers fence NACs regularly.

I guess it depends on the type of club. Most everyone in my fencing circle live for national competition, and are coached primarily to do well at NACs and international events. It sounds like the ROC events would suit your club members well.

[gladius]

... Maybe the dates might not be great, but ultimately, if fencing continues to grow, the Summer Nationals model will no longer be sustainable. ... The SNs are getting way too big, so eventually, we have to split the events to other days to make them manageable.

The best way is to put them in tournaments that look "similar". Of course, for those who plan to attend across multiple age and skill categories, it will require more travel. Similarly for the coaches. But it has to be done eventually.

This is the reality which some do not want to accept, but it is the reality and I agree that some sort of split must be done: the issues are what to split, how to split, and when to do it. It is incumbent upon the USFA admin to think proactively and globally about this and to come up with possible scenarios considering what others do, what the base says, and adopt and adapt what makes sense to our environment. Continue with no change is not an option any responsible administration can select.

I don't see it as a problem or non-problem, but more of a necessity, as the demographics of the sport evolves.
...
Maybe the transition to this new national schedule is too soon. Maybe it's already too late. It's tough to say without significant hindsight. But a reasonable ten-year planning process must account for the current and continued growth of the sport and how to address the need to keep the competition sizes reasonable.

I agree 100%. I do hope indeed that whoever is involved in this process is using a ten-year planning process and not just let's try this for a while and see if it works.

...We now have in the area of 17 events per-weapon including D1, D1A, D2, D3, D1 Team, Senior Team, U19, U19 Team, U16, Y14, Y12, Y10, and all the various wheelchair and veteran events which are too numerous to remember. With entries as astronomically as they are, something needs to be done. It simply isn't possible for the USFA to have multi-week marathons given the available time, space, and personnel resources.

A very sound analysis and sensible conclusion. Even if I were part of those who think "this ain't broken yet, so don't mess around with it" sooner or later we will reach the point where this "multi ring circus model" cannot work because it will be impossible to find venues big enough or practical enough to accommodate our needs. It's good to start thinking out of the box, particularly when the box is a bit constricting and the number of boxes available is getting smaller...

I applaud the USFA for thinking and making plans to be implemented down the line. Then the discussion will be when they will be implemented and how, i.e., making a radical change at once or proceed in stages. There will be growing pains either way and in any case, even if we keep the status quo...[*]

The only option the USFA has is to break this up. And the only break-up that makes sense is to divide based on common factors. We essentially have two cadet/junior national championships every year in the current model. It makes perfect sense to combine the JO and Junior NC events. The remaining breakouts are obvious based on the groups participating in each.

One of the problems is that in competitive fencing (FIE) there are two separate seasons: junior and senior. The former begins in September and concludes with the World Championships in April, the latter begins in January and concludes in non Olympic years with the World Championships in September/October, but in 2010 it will be in November.

These two FIE calendars affect what the USFA does even if among the USFA members this directly involves only a tiny minority of individuals. Indirectly though it touches a much larger group of all those who aspire one day to be part of this tiny minority (from cadet all the way to veteran).

The simple choice is

1. ignore what the FIE calendars are and fence for fun, family style from grandpa to grandkids all together all weapons under a big happy circus tent, or
   
   
2. start thinking in terms of separation.

If we/USFA are interested in qualifying teams of young fencers (cadet and junior) for world championships, then we must have a calendar of activities which is in tune with the FIE calendars even if this means screwing up the family fencing vacation plans of many.

The USFA wants to offer members as much fencing as possible... but at some point you have to deal with the reality of the situation. These are the "good" growing pains that we need to go through if we are going to continue growing our sport.

Could not have said this better myself. Glad to see that the USFA admin is doing this or at least is making plans for doing it.

Status quo is not an option.


[*] On the issue of how to implement a radical change for those familiar with the friendly rivalry in Scandinavia between Norwegian and Swedes, this story can show the "problems of change." From

http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/history/...on_right.shtml

Since 1916 the Swedish parliament acknowledged left-hand traffic by law, but every year between 1920 and 1939, the parliament discussed whether to stay on the left side or move over to the right side of the road, which Sweden's neighbour countries in Scandinavia and the rest of the continent were already using. Nothing happened though because switching side was against the people's will.

In 1955 a national referendum was held and there was strong campaigning from both sides. Right side campaigners used rational arguments based on facts, like safer overtaking. The "lefties" played on people's long-time habits and emotions; "Do you want to see your mother killed?"

Of course such arguments paid off. The result was a landslide victory to stay on the left side –83% against 15% for. Nevertheless, strong lobbying for switching side continued and this eventually led to the parliament deciding in 1963 that Sweden should eventually make the transition from left-hand traffic to right-hand traffic in 1967, and preparations for the switch started.

On September 3, 1967, at 04.50 in the morning, the traffic everywhere in Sweden was directed over to the right side of the road and stopped. Everything stood absolutely still for 10 minutes, and at 05.00, when it started again, all road users in Sweden from heavy trucks to cyclists were already on the right side of the road, and they have stayed there since. (You can read the rest of the story in the link provided)


This is what happened. The joke was from the Norwegian side (who always take a dim look on the Swedes) about how to implement such a drastic change.

According to the Norwegians some Swedes contemplated the idea of a gradual implementation of the new rule of traffic by proposing that on "H-day" (the initial letter of the word "right" in Swedish) all passenger cars switch to the right while all trucks, buses and commercial vehicles would do so a week later...leaving that first week as an easier transition week (yes this is/was a Norwegian joke, sorry Peter!)

[pillow]

If we/USFA are interested in qualifying teams of young fencers (cadet and junior) for world championships, then we must have a calendar of activities which is in tune with the FIE calendars even if this means screwing up the family fencing vacation plans of many.

Pretty much incorrect here. We currently have had great results with our Cadet and Junior teams, which are indeed chosen to fit the FIE schedule, so I don't see your point here. I would also add, that eliminating a Div I NAC in April and
eliminating the Cadet and Junior events from the Summer Nationals will force Cadet and Junior fencers to be without National level competition from February to the following fall--not going to help much with their training will it?

[teacup]

Besides going from left to right, another example of reluctance to change:

When will the United States stop using the British system of weights and measures, (that even the British don't use) and join the rest of the world which uses the metric system?

Change is difficult, but not all changes are necessarily bad, change can sometimes be for the better.

[pillow]

Besides going from left to right, another example of reluctance to change:

When will the United States stop using the British system of weights and measures, (that even the British don't use) and join the rest of the world which uses the metric system?

Change is difficult, but not all changes are necessarily bad, change can sometimes be for the better.

The British often give their body weight in "stone." Not exactly metric system, but it works for them.

[Jason]

I also wonder how much of the ROC business is about money...

I agree. The proposed schedule change reinforces some of the problems with the ROCs I noted before--specifically that the USFA would be unfairly advantaging certain clubs over others. While I do think the current NAC/SN system needs to be changed, the current proposal, along with the ROC system would result in a few private owners having a significant amount of power in US fencing. (Those ROC events that are run by divisions, rather than private clubs, don't fall under this same criticism.)

It's as though the USFA is saying, "We're going to give ownership of this NAC--along with all of its revenues--to Mr. Ma" (who I have absolutely no ill-will toward and am only using as an example). The problem then is that the very nature of the ROC system as it is currently described will lead to the same owners permanently having ROCs year after year. The implications of that situation should be very troubling.

[hello?]

Besides going from left to right, another example of reluctance to change:

When will the United States stop using the British system of weights and measures, (that even the British don't use) and join the rest of the world which uses the metric system?

Change is difficult, but not all changes are necessarily bad, change can sometimes be for the better.

I totally agree. When it's well thought out and meant to solve a problem. Not the case here, where the proposed schedule creates more problems than the one it's intended to replace. I (and many others) don't see 'an improvement' here. Change can sometimes be for the better. In this case, many think the change will be for the worse.

[hello?]

This is the reality

Why?

which some do not want to accept,

Because it has yet to convincingly proven. "Because we say so" is not good enough.

Continue with no change is not an option any responsible administration can select.

To change for the worse, without having given it careful thought, is even more irresponsible.

[gladius]

Pretty much incorrect here. We currently have had great results with our Cadet and Junior teams, which are indeed chosen to fit the FIE schedule, so I don't see your point here.

I really don't know how much you have been involved personally in the process of qualifying for the cadet and junior teams at worlds. And I don't understand your sentence that our Cadet and Junior teams "are indeed chosen to fit the FIE schedule." Is this your opinion or do you know for a fact? Have you analysed all possibilities of this "fit" and how to make it better or cheaper both for the USFA and the athletes and their families?

Having gone through twice over the past two years and continuing to go through the process now I can assure you that it is not easy to fit different calendars. Any attempt to get in step with the FIE calendar is in my personal opinion a change for the better. You are free to disagree.

I would also add, that eliminating a Div I NAC in April and eliminating the Cadet and Junior events from the Summer Nationals will force Cadet and Junior fencers to be without National level competition from February to the following fall--not going to help much with their training will it?

You have a peculiar tendency to interpret what I write by attributing to me specific thoughts or ideas I don't have and which you cannot possibly know. I do think that a change is necessary for the reasons mentioned. I did not espouse any of the specifics you indicate. These are details which people with more experience than me can talk about because they involve many fencers with many different needs and priorities, and several "boundary conditions" I am not deeply familiar.

As to what will help our elite fencers with their training this is a whole different kettle of fish which deserves a separate thread.

To change for the worse, without having given it careful thought, is even more irresponsible.

If you think that I advocate change for change's sake or that I don't recommend careful thought beforehand, you have a reading and comprehension problem. Just to be clear, I am for change for the better, even if this may cause me personally or my personal interests some temporary pain and inconvenience during the transition period.

It goes without saying that "better" is a relative and subjective term and what I can think of as being "better" may not be what you think it is.

Just like in the switch left to right in Sweden.

[fencerwallet]

"Have no fear of change as such and, on the other hand, no liking for it merely for its own sake." - Robert Moses

[pillow]

I really don't know how much you have been involved personally in the process of qualifying for the cadet and junior teams at worlds. And I don't understand your sentence that our Cadet and Junior teams "are indeed chosen to fit the FIE schedule." Is this your opinion or do you know for a fact? Have you analysed all possibilities of this "fit" and how to make it better or cheaper both for the USFA and the athletes and their families?

Having gone through twice over the past two years and continuing to go through the process now I can assure you that it is not easy to fit different calendars. Any attempt to get in step with the FIE calendar is in my personal opinion a change for the better. You are free to disagree.



You have a peculiar tendency to interpret what I write by attributing to me specific thoughts or ideas I don't have and which you cannot possibly know. I do think that a change is necessary for the reasons mentioned. I did not espouse any of the specifics you indicate. These are details which people with more experience than me can talk about because they involve many fencers with many different needs and priorities, and several "boundary conditions" I am not deeply familiar.

As to what will help our elite fencers with their training this is a whole different kettle of fish which deserves a separate thread.



If you think that I advocate change for change's sake or that I don't recommend careful thought beforehand, you have a reading and comprehension problem. Just to be clear, I am for change for the better, even if this may cause me personally or my personal interests some temporary pain and inconvenience during the transition period.

It goes without saying that "better" is a relative and subjective term and what I can think of as being "better" may not be what you think it is.

Just like in the switch left to right in Sweden.

The Cadet/Junior World Team is chosen at the JOs. That fits the FIE schedule. What else are you referring to?

You appear to support the proposed schedule. If you don't, then I have misunderstood you. If you do support the proposed schedule, then I stand by my position that having no National events for Cadet and Juniors from the JOs to the following fall is a very bad idea.

[hello?]

Just like in the switch left to right in Sweden.

Much more applicable, I believe, is the switch right to left, from the same source you quoted earlier:

"Traffic in Sweden – if the word can be applied for horses, oxen and carts – started to use the right side of the road in 1718 and did so until 1734, when suddenly left-hand traffic was introduced. Why? No one really knows. Maybe it was to have the swordhand – right for most people – closest to the enemy when meeting on horseback."

I can see it now: "The USFA...did so until 2011, when suddenly a new tournament schedule was introduced. Why? No one really knows...

[misha]

Are you guys aware that FIE is proposing drastic changes to it's calendar
starting with 2010-2011 season?
What I heard is that for Seniors it will be 5 WC combined with team events
and 3 GP without team events.
Do not know about Juniors, but I am assuming it will be changed too.

Why are we discussing/making changes before we know how the new
FIE calendar look like?

I suggest we need to wait and see...

BTW: The Cadet World Championship was on the chopping block for
a while. May be they will finally eliminate it too, which will eliminate
the need for Cadet Team selection


.

[teacup]

The Cadet/Junior World Team is chosen at the JOs. That fits the FIE schedule. What else are you referring to?

JO's are in February, then the Summer Nationals Jr/Cadet Championships are held at the START of the season in July. Immediately following these "Championships" is a break of 3 - 4 months until the next jr/cadet national event.

The FIE junior/cadet calendar starts in September and ends in April, with no big breaks in the middle. In other words, it is not a year round sport.

Misha is correct that it would be helpful to know the FIE's plans regarding schedules.

[pillow]

JO's are in February, then the Summer Nationals Jr/Cadet Championships are held at the START of the season in July. Immediately following these "Championships" is a break of 3 - 4 months until the next jr/cadet national event.

The FIE junior/cadet calendar starts in September and ends in April, with no big breaks in the middle. In other words, it is not a year round sport.

Misha is correct that it would be helpful to know the FIE's plans regarding schedules.

I know this of course. The relevant points are that the teams are chosen at the JOs, which is before the April Cadet/Junior Worlds. The other issue, as I and others have said, is that removal of the April Div I NAC and Cadets/Juniors from the SN (which would be their first National event of the season) would leave too long a break until the proposed Cadet/Junior event in the fall. We do not in any way HAVE to follow the FIE calendar other than having our teams qualified for the respective Worlds. We need to do what is best for our fencers, not the FIE. Witness the correct decision by the USFA not to adopt lame-bib masks for NACs.

[Inquartata]

If the status quo is not an option, it should be. There is nothing wrong with it, President Obama to the contrary notwithstanding.

And there is no danger of getting too big to find venues large enough to hold Nationals. Most of the convention centers which have held the NACs and Nationals to which I have been have multiple halls as large or larger than the ones the fencing was in, often going unused. Remember how far it was to the hall we used in Atlanta? That was because you were tramping past whole wings of other halls...

Now, cost is another question. But capacity alone is not a looming issue.

[KD5MDK]

I think most people would prefer being able to hold tournaments in more places than just Atlanta and Houston, though. Also, when only a few places are big enough to hold your event, they know it, and will price accordingly. When there are a lot more places competing for the business, you get better prices in addition to more options.

[Inquartata]

But it's not just those two. As my fuzzy memory tells me, it's the same with Denver, for instance. For goodness sakes, even Tucson had a side hall they used for one day in addition to the main one---and the main one was shared with some sort of trade show. There was space there, it just wasn't all used.

It's not smart to build convention centers too small for potential lessees, you know. Unless you're talking about small towns, they usually don't.

Again, I suspect that the sticking point is expense, not capacity. Which is a fair argument in itself, of course.

Not but what I have no problem with Atlanta, myself...

Edit: This gives me an idea. If there are really complaints about the "circus" atmosphere of Nationals, and if in fact there are all these sponsors just waiting with bated breath to rush in and give us lots of money if only we separate events...why not just lease 4 halls of the same venue? One each for Div 1, Juniors/Cadets, Youth and "the rest of us". Then these sponsors can just pick which one they want to support...and we still have everyone more or less together.