New Team Events

[flechewounds]

Folks -

One of the challenges we have in Women's Foil is that our top competitors are pretty spread out (not even in the same part of the country). Sure, there are more in NYC, but it isn't the concentration that some other disciplines enjoy.

Given that the teams during the team events are limited to divisions, teams are difficult, if not impossible, to form. Furthermore, it is likely that a team will have one or two strong fencers, and two or three weak ones - pretty unbalanced.

Anyhow, I had an idea - what if the teams could be composite teams across divisions, but once formed, would have to stay together for an entire season. Under this scenario, Jane Smith, Joan Miller, Sandy Jones and Mary White (all fictitious) could form team Belle Garde - as long as they stayed together for the entire season.

My guess is that this approach would both (a) increase participation in the event, and (b) even out the playing field a bit - not quite parity, but less concentration.

Thoughts?

[teacup]

This is true not just in women's foil. (A Div I team event in January in lieu of a junior team may have also increased team participation.)

Y14/Cadet/Junior Teams:

While increasing US team strength is a well intentioned goal, there will be problems getting top fencers and teams to attend additional events. One issue is team eligibility being based on club affiliation and another is the scheduling of events. (Top fencers being unable to fence due to NCAA compliance is a big problem.) Unless these factors are changed, there will be mediocre teams with strong individual fencers, small clubs unable to field a team or strong fencers unable to fence due to NCAA rules.

Why not structure the teams by age and region? Y14 teams would be defined by club affiliation, cadet by divisions, junior teams by region/nationally and senior teams nationally.

As fencers age and form alliances with fencers throughout the country, team participation should increase and performance in junior and senior international team events may also improve.

[flechewounds]

This is true not just in women's foil. (A Div I team event in January in lieu of a junior team may have also increased team participation.)

Y14/Cadet/Junior Teams:

While increasing US team strength is a well intentioned goal, there will be problems getting top fencers and teams to attend additional events. One issue is team eligibility being based on club affiliation and another is the scheduling of events. (Top fencers being unable to fence due to NCAA compliance is a big problem.) Unless these factors are changed, there will be mediocre teams with strong individual fencers, small clubs unable to field a team or strong fencers unable to fence due to NCAA rules.

Why not structure the teams by age and region? Y14 teams would be defined by club affiliation, cadet by divisions, junior teams by region/nationally and senior teams nationally.

As fencers age and form alliances with fencers throughout the country, team participation should increase and performance in junior and senior international team events may also improve.

At least for WF, Cadet, Junior and Senior would need to take a wider swath.

[alpine]

Thoughts?

Not just WF, but across the spectrum. There are entire divisions in the west that don't have enough skilled competitors to assemble teams in multiple weapons. I don't consider it particularly fair to exclude fencers from participating in team events just because they come from less populated parts of the country. Just about anything would be more equatable than the current "by division" system.

[teacup]

At least for WF, Cadet, Junior and Senior would need to take a wider swath.

I mentioned that in my previous post.

This is true not just in women's foil.

[passata_sotto]

Not just WF, but across the spectrum. There are entire divisions in the west that don't have enough skilled competitors to assemble teams in multiple weapons. I don't consider it particularly fair to exclude fencers from participating in team events just because they come from less populated parts of the country. Just about anything would be more equatable than the current "by division" system.

Ditto

In our division we have two foil fencers who compete nationally and can fence on a junior team and three for a senior team.

[fdad]

Not just WF, but across the spectrum. There are entire divisions in the west that don't have enough skilled competitors to assemble teams in multiple weapons. I don't consider it particularly fair to exclude fencers from participating in team events just because they come from less populated parts of the country. Just about anything would be more equatable than the current "by division" system.

Perhaps the best thing would have been a random selection. Each fencer that wants to participate would indicate so on the registration form. They would be seeded, and sorted into even strength teams of 3 (teams of 4 would cause problem since who would decide who would be the alternate?).

[teacup]

The top 16 cadets and top 8 Y14 on the NRPL, which is one of the means to qualify for JOs, won't be determined until the end of the day on Jan. 18, the morning of Jan. 19, or whenever the points lists are updated.* Now most will probably have qualified by some other means but some may not have. There may also be fencers who qualify for JO's by earning points at the January NAC. (Junior WS and ME events are on Jan. 18th.)

This means that some fencers may not find out that they are qualified until the end of the day of Jan. 18th. The deadline for regular fee registration for JOs is Jan. 19th. Team members names must be listed on the registration form. That's not much time for a bunch of teenagers to determine teams. In other words, another obstacle to forming teams.

*Junior and Div I points don't roll down to Y14 and the SYC points aren't updated until April, so not sure why the date for autoqualifying the top 8 on the Y14 points list isn't after the November NAC.

[pillow]

Why not first try to find a schedule that does not put team events between points events and on the first or last day? Why not work first with the NCAA before dumping this on our college fencers? Then you can come up with other potential solutions.

[hello?]

what if the teams could be composite teams across divisions, but once formed, would have to stay together for an entire season. Under this scenario, Jane Smith, Joan Miller, Sandy Jones and Mary White (all fictitious) could form team Belle Garde - as long as they stayed together for the entire season.

My guess is that this approach would both (a) increase participation in the event, and (b) even out the playing field a bit - not quite parity, but less concentration.

Thoughts?

I think this is a fun idea.

[kapunga]

Perhaps the best thing would have been a random selection. Each fencer that wants to participate would indicate so on the registration form. They would be seeded, and sorted into even strength teams of 3 (teams of 4 would cause problem since who would decide who would be the alternate?).

Perhaps it's just me, but I would never want to compete on a team with 2 other random fencers. Part of my performance in team events comes from who I'm fencing with. In some events the three of us do much better as a team than we would do individually, I'm not sure this would happen if I was paired with two other random fencers.

[oiuyt]

Why not first try to find a schedule that does not put team events between points events and on the first or last day? Why not work first with the NCAA before dumping this on our college fencers? Then you can come up with other potential solutions.

It's not possible both to avoid having the team event between the other two AND to avoid having the team event either before or after both individual events. One or the other of those MUST be true.*

There are a large number of desiderata (with varied levels of priority) taken into account when constructing day schedules for national tournaments. Some of the desiderata are in direct conflict with other desiderata. Some collectively act to exclude others. Insisting that two mutually exclusive criteria both be met before looking at any other types of solutions really doesn't make much sense.

-B

* Well, I suppose there's also the possibility of having the team event run concurrently with one of the individual events, but we'll exclude that option for simplicity.

[hello?]

Perhaps it's just me, but I would never want to compete on a team with 2 other random fencers. Part of my performance in team events comes from who I'm fencing with. In some events the three of us do much better as a team than we would do individually, I'm not sure this would happen if I was paired with two other random fencers.

I agree. I wouldn't want to be in a team with random people.

[pillow]

It's not possible both to avoid having the team event between the other two AND to avoid having the team event either before or after both individual events. One or the other of those MUST be true.*

There are a large number of desiderata (with varied levels of priority) taken into account when constructing day schedules for national tournaments. Some of the desiderata are in direct conflict with other desiderata. Some collectively act to exclude others. Insisting that two mutually exclusive criteria both be met before looking at any other types of solutions really doesn't make much sense.

-B

* Well, I suppose there's also the possibility of having the team event run concurrently with one of the individual events, but we'll exclude that option for simplicity.

B-

Thanks for the lesson in logic, but your system is flawed. As I posted earlier in the other thread the following should be considered. And, btw this is exclusive of the NCAA problems, which I have seen have not been clarified by the USFA here or on the USFA site.

The team events should be held in the evening AFTER the last point event in a particular weapon. These are fun events only so it doesn't matter if the fencers are a bit tired, as they are sharing the duties with team-mates.

Therefore, if you are fencing WE and you have as an example, Cadets, day off and then Juniors ( I didn't look at the schedule, but this is hypothetical) you need to schedule the WE Team event the evening of the day of the Juniors.

This ELIMINATES the need to stay an extra day and also ELIMINATES the need to fence on the off day between individual points events. Every fencer I have spoken to loves this idea, as they and their coaches are not interested in having a fencer getting tired between points events, or spending money to stay an extra day at the start or end of the NAC weekend for a non-championship team event.

Lastly, I refer you to my idea NOT to fence every weapon team at NAC D and the JOs, but do half at each NAC. It will make life easier.

Cogito ergo sum to you! Whatever that means.

PS: Now that there is no REPECHAGE at NACs, there will be more time to have the team event the evening of the final point event for a particular weapon.

[oso97]

Why not work first with the NCAA before dumping this on our college fencers?

Dumping? How is being dumped on NCAA college fencers in particular?

Everyone has the option to participate, or not, depending upon their individual schedules. Some will be unable to because of NCAA commitments. Some will be unable to because of work commitments. Some will be unable to participate because their coach doesn't want them to. Some will be unable to participate because no one wants to be on a team with them.

Its a non-team selection event. Doesn't count for squat. Its an opportunity for more bouts for the fencers who participate, period. Some of the participants will gain valuable experience. Some won't. I fail to see how this unfairly burdens NCAA fencers, over and above any of the other groups who wouldn't be able to participate, like say, people older than 20.

[pillow]

Dumping? How is being dumped on NCAA college fencers in particular?

Everyone has the option to participate, or not, depending upon their individual schedules. Some will be unable to because of NCAA commitments. Some will be unable to because of work commitments. Some will be unable to participate because their coach doesn't want them to. Some will be unable to participate because no one wants to be on a team with them.

Its a non-team selection event. Doesn't count for squat. Its an opportunity for more bouts for the fencers who participate, period. Some of the participants will gain valuable experience. Some won't. I fail to see how this unfairly burdens NCAA fencers, over and above any of the other groups who wouldn't be able to participate, like say, people older than 20.

I'll tell you exactly why it's dumping on the NCAA fencers. Some of our best Juniors are NCAA fencers. The NCAA has some very complex rules regarding these events. It is certainly more complicated for student-athlete to get a straight answer from the NCAA or college compliance officer (ever try?) than it is for a non-NCAA fencer who can't do a team because she has to work. Also, if you are over 20, you don't need to check a complex compliance issue do you?--just know your date of birth.
It is also lazy of the the USFA not to have a good liason with the NCAA to try to clarify this problem at the NGB level before announcing the team events. That would be a nice courtesy to our NCAA fencers and good for USFA-NCAA relations, don't you think?
And as you say if it doesn't count for squat, why not just make these team events part of the ROC system, rather than add them to a NAC?

[oso97]

It is also lazy of the the USFA not to have a good liason with the NCAA to try to clarify this problem at the NGB level before announcing the team events. That would be a nice courtesy to our NCAA fencers and good for USFA-NCAA relations, don't you think?

It takes two parties for successful liasions to occur... And the party that has repeatedly demonstrated its lack of interest in liasions is the NCAA, not the USFA. If you think getting a straight answer out of a compliance officer is difficult, try getting the NCAA to change its policies.

[pillow]

It takes two parties for successful liasions to occur... And the party that has repeatedly demonstrated its lack of interest in liasions is the NCAA, not the USFA. If you think getting a straight answer out of a compliance officer is difficult, try getting the NCAA to change its policies.

I agree totally. I would not expect the NCAA to ever change a policy, but I would hope that a written clarification of the rules about fencing for a "team" at a NAC for each NCAA division could be posted by on the USFA site. Would it be sooo difficult for Christine or Kurt to use their positions of authority with our NGB to at least try to have clarified this matter by now?

[hello?]

I agree totally. I would not expect the NCAA to ever change a policy, but I would hope that a written clarification of the rules about fencing for a "team" at a NAC for each NCAA division could be posted by on the USFA site. Would it be sooo difficult for Christine or Kurt to use their positions of authority with our NGB to at least try to have clarified this matter by now?

I THINK the problem is that, even within the same division, two schools might have different issues with the same event (ie. depending on when they are on vacation, for example).

[pillow]

I THINK the problem is that, even within the same division, two schools might have different issues with the same event (ie. depending on when they are on vacation, for example).

I have no idea. I can only suggest that it is an NCAA compliance issue, not an issue for the particular school to decide. REGARDLESS, would it have killed the USFA to have a clear explanation of this before a JUNIOR team event that affects a large number of our best fencers? Of course not.