1 Div III, 1 Junior, 1 Cadet, 1 Youth, 1 Vet NAC?

[vigia]

If I read the Preliminary Schedule on the USFA website right, there are only 1 each of Div III, Junior, Cadet, Y12, Y10 and Veteran NAC's.

However there are 2 Div I, Div II, and Y14 NAC's.

Kind of odd... 2 Y14 NAC's but only 1 Junior, Cadet, and Y10/12 NAC's? 2 Div II but only 1 Div III?

Anybody know why this fell out this way? Was it lack of bidders? Seems like a big hit to take for a large number of fencers. At least the Y12/Y10 fencers can go to RYC's. What about everyone else? Or was this some kind of structural decision (i.e., the USFA doesn't think 2 NAC's for the above categories are a good idea.) Or was it just the schedule as a whole being filled with Pre-Olympic and Olympic events that use up the USFA resources and available referees?

[JEC]

There are actually two NAC veterans. One with Div. I in December in Palm Springs, California, and the Second one in March along with Div. II and III probably in Reno, NV.

[Inquartata]

Part of an ongoing trend, I think---an unfortunate one, IMO, but the USFA does what it likes...and what it likes is to favor the top elites over the "grassroots" who pay the bills. Thus Div I is elite level, so it stays at parity; Div II is the next-to-top category, so it stays at parity; and the rest, oh, let them form local and regional competitions on their own, the hoi polloi oughtn't to bother the national office with it's trifling wishes...

"Let them eat cake"

[vigia]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Part of an ongoing trend, I think---an unfortunate one, IMO, but the USFA does what it likes...and what it likes is to favor the top elites over the "grassroots" who pay the bills. Thus Div I is elite level, so it stays at parity; Div II is the next-to-top category, so it stays at parity; and the rest, oh, let them form local and regional competitions on their own, the hoi polloi oughtn't to bother the national office with it's trifling wishes...

"Let them eat cake"

But 2 Y14 NAC's? How does that fit? And the Juniors are the next Div I elites...

BTW, the expression "Let them eat cake" is better translated from the French as "let them eat biscuits". And Marie Antionette never said it, the attribution is by Rousseau to an "aristocratic woman", pretty much by hearsay, and many decades before the French Revolution. The usual treatment of this statement (Marie Antoinette etc.) is an interesting erroneous factoid that exists only the in the American educational system, and perpetuates itself year after year in one textbook after another. Nobody in the rest of the world, and nobody in France for sure, ever gets taught it since it didn't happen. But it has this poetic justice about it that seems irresistable and in fact, illuminative of the situation in pre-revolution France. Just thought I'd throw that out there!

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by vigia
But 2 Y14 NAC's? How does that fit?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"...and we all know that the USFA is run by big, BIG minds....

As for the Juniors, well, they have JOs in addition to the NACs.

Thus too the Veteran NACs: the Veteran World Championships are an elite goal, after a fashion. But there is no World Championship for Ds, Es and Us, and no prestige to be had by channeling resources into them. So best just take their money and leave them to their own devices.

[Wizardly]

Reminds me of our government

So the question I have is (and I'm eagerly waiting to see what happens in the "how to run a national tournament" thread), how do we get more Div 3, Veteran, etc NACs?

[Peach]

I don't know about other people, but I don't want more Veteran NACs. In order to stay where I want to be on the points list, I have to attend at least one of the two Vet NACs (usually both) and compete in the 50+ Championships. One of the Vet NACs is always held in conjunction with events I and some other vets can't fence (Div II/III) while the other is held in conjunction with events other vets can't fence (Div I). It's already a lot of traveling for most of us, and it often means I have to wangle time off from work. I admit that I also go because it's fun, of course!

As for the Division III, I think the USFA may want to back away somewhat from serving as a developmental introduction to fencing and leave that role more to regional tournaments. I certainly enjoyed the Division III when I could do it, but it's a bear to referee and it's sort of weird to think of it as a national-level tournament when you think about it.

[oiuyt]

Look at what's changed:

Div III - lost 1 NAC
Div II - no change
Div I - lost 1 NAC, early national championships
Youth - lost Jan. NAC, gained Y14 event in Oct.
Cadet - lost 1 NAC
Junior - lost 1 NAC
Vet - no change

The change to Div I was required by an early Olympics (August). This change happens about every other year, depending on the scheduling for the Olympics or World Championships for that year and isn't a big deal or a policy change. The Youth NAC that was cut was due to the splitting of the January div I NAC into 2 weekends. There's no way the USFA was running NACs 3 weekends in January. The addition of Y14 to October was in part to balance that. The Junior/Cadet NAC in November was replaced by the Junior World Cup in that month.

The dropping of the Div III NAC appears to be to free time for the moving of the Y14 event that compensates (partially) for the removal of the January Youth NAC. Sort of spreads the pain for that tournament being dropped. Youth fencers lose a bit (Y10/Y12 events), Senior fencers lose a bit (Div III event). Anyone who could fence the Div III event can still participate in that NAC in the Div II event. Div III participants still have a number of national events open to them (3 div II's, 2 div III's, plus any age-group events, including Summer Nationals).

Personally I think that dropping the Div III NAC was a bad idea. Realistically, not much on the national schedule has changed significantly. It's just that the changes are all in the direction of fewer events for this year. Notice that the only 2 categories of events that were unchanged were vet and div II, all other events took a hit. Most of the changes all stem from the decision to split the January Div I/Junior NAC into 2 weekends. That removed the January Youth NAC from the schedule and that in turn caused the conversion of the October Div III into a Y14 event. The Juniors had a Junior/Cadet NAC converted to a Junior World Cup. The Div I fencers lost a NAC due to the early deadline for setting our Olympic team.

National Calendar events by category, not including World Cup schedules:
III: 2
II: 3
I: 3
Y10/Y12: 2
Y14: 3
Cadet: 2
Junior: 3
Vet: 3

It's hard to say that any of the above groups are getting a huge bias in their favor. Looks pretty even to me.

-B :)

[a517dogg]

Originally posted by oiuyt
Look at what's changed:

Cadet - lost 1 NAC
Junior - lost 1 NAC

The Junior/Cadet NAC in November was replaced by the Junior World Cup in that month.

The Juniors had a Junior/Cadet NAC converted to a Junior World Cup.

it's not an even swtich - junior world cup in louisville is only open to those with junior or cadet points, which is the minority of junior fencers in the states.

[vigia]

Originally posted by a517dogg
it's not an even swtich - junior world cup in louisville is only open to those with junior or cadet points, which is the minority of junior fencers in the states.

I agree with adogg. This is a big hit for a lot of fencers. I always assumed that the USFA had the goal of *more* national-level competitive bouts for developing fencers (read Cadet, Junior, Div III), rather than less. The cascade of schedule drops caused by splitting the Jan NAC into two weekends seems like that was a poor decision, and that a lot of fencers in those categories would have voted against it if given the chance. Why not keep the same schedule as previous years? (Except for the changes for the Olympics...)

[oiuyt]

Juniors and Cadets already had more events than any other group. Then consider the fact that every cadet or junior fencer can also compete in at LEAST one other category. Is the World Cup a complete replacement for the NAC? No. It is a replacement. It takes up the same spot on the national calendar, and is targetted at the same group. The group that has the fewest national opportunities is a Div I (non-vet) senior. Without national points this fencer has 2 national events this year. Any younger or older, and age-group events get added. Lower rated and you add the 3 Div II events. Lower yet and the Div I events are replaced by Div III events. Y10/Y12 also only get 2 events, but the RYC circuit is being designed to address this category and give them appropriate large-event experience.

As the USFA grows I see the focus shifting towards more and more regional events that qualify one to the few national events. The USFA membership is growing fairly quickly. It's easy to extrapolate out to where there are so many people that open entry to national events won't be possible. It would be nice to have tried out various systems and ideas for how to deal with that "problem" before it's here. The RYC's are a good step. See what works. See what encourages local/regional tournaments that are big enough to be worth travelling to. See how we can use them and account for regional differences in qualifying people to national events. Then expand the idea to other segments of the fencing scene.

-B :)

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Part of an ongoing trend, I think---an unfortunate one, IMO, but the USFA does what it likes...and what it likes is to favor the top elites over the "grassroots" who pay the bills. Thus Div I is elite level, so it stays at parity; Div II is the next-to-top category, so it stays at parity; and the rest, oh, let them form local and regional competitions on their own, the hoi polloi oughtn't to bother the national office with it's trifling wishes...

"Let them eat cake"

how does this theory explain 1 junior NAC?

Junior IS elite!

ditto to a lesser extent for cadet.

-m

[a517dogg]

Junior world cup is elite. Junior NACs are not elite - any shmuck who's born in the right year can compete.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Peach


As for the Division III, I think the USFA may want to back away somewhat from serving as a developmental introduction to fencing and leave that role more to regional tournaments.

Why? Isn't that part of it's raison d'etre?

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by oiuyt

It's hard to say that any of the above groups are getting a huge bias in their favor. Looks pretty even to me.

If you look at it on a percentage basis, the difference between events with 2 NACs and those with 3 is a pretty substantial 33.333%...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
how does this theory explain 1 junior NAC?

Junior IS elite!

Assuming for a moment that your premise is correct, there is as I said still JOs, which is as good or better than an NAC. So it's 2, really, not 1...

[oiuyt]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Why? Isn't that part of it's raison d'etre?

Of course. And it DOES support developmental fencing. Especially at the local level where it belongs. Giving Peach's full sentence as a quote:

As for the Division III, I think the USFA may want to back away somewhat from serving as a developmental introduction to fencing and leave that role more to regional tournaments

It's clear that she is suggesting that the national organization might be interested in shifting some more of the developmental role to the regions rather than the national level. The USFA is run to, among other things, provide a developmental introduction to fencing. That doesn't mean that the best means of doing so is through a few large national tournaments.

Compare what we have now to what we had 5 years ago (98-99, the first year I fenced nationally). That season there were: (change from this year in parenthesis)
Div III - 2 (0)
Div II - 2 (-1)
Open (Div I) - 5 (+2)
Youth - 4 (Y10/12: +2, Y14: +1)
Cadet - 4 (+2)
Junior - 4 (+1)
Vet - 3 (0)
So in that time we've lost events in Div I, Youth, Cadet, and Junior, and added a Div II event. How is it that we're shifting more to an elite favorable schedule again? What used to be a Youth/Cadet event is now a II/Cadet/Y14 event. Where we used to have a Open/Junior we moved to a Junior/Cadet and then replaced it with a Junior World Cup. A Youth/Cadet was converted to a Youth, and then dropped completely this year due to the previously mentioned splitting of the Div I/Junior NAC in Jan. We lost the Canadian Elite NAC completely. We lost the March Youth NAC completely. This was in a year similar to the upcoming one where the Div I National Championships were in April.

There are fewer national events on the schedule than there have been in the past. The cuts need to come somewhere. I don't see that developmental fencers have been hit by more cuts than elite fencers. The question of whether or not we should be agitating for additional NACs in an absolute sense is a separate (albeit highly related) topic.

-B :)

[CarlKnoch]

Originally posted by Peach
As for the Division III, I think the USFA may want to back away somewhat from serving as a developmental introduction to fencing and leave that role more to regional tournaments. I certainly enjoyed the Division III when I could do it, but it's a bear to referee and it's sort of weird to think of it as a national-level tournament when you think about it.

This comment scares me. In my mind this is just one step away from saying, "As for Divisions II and III, I think the USFA may want to back away somewhat from serving as a developmental introduction to fencing. Besides, it's sort of weird to think of the Summer Nationals as a National level tourney if there are Div II and III fencers there. They should just fence at regional tourneys until they are ready for a national level event."

What's next? Cutting out the veterans events because the veterans aren't "national level fencers" compared to Cadet, Junior, Div I and IA?

Now the idea of changing the responsibility of "bringing up and developing fencers" from the national to the regional level sounds good, but lets look at the probabilities of this change honestly.
The regional level doesn't want that responsibility, and more than likely won't respond with more regional tourneys without funding from the National office. Instead they will hold the same as they always do, which will lead to a void between lower and upper ranks. No appreciable number of Div II and III regional events will be held, and a thinning of the lower ranked fencers will begin due to no opportunities to fence at anything but a local level. This culling will lead to fewer fencers in the US, and even less interest than there is right now in the sport.

Of course, it could happen differently than that, but I just can't count on the regional volunteer officers setting up events as well I as could a full time staff at the USFA. Speaking of that, are the regional/sectional officers paid positions? Are they full time or are they more like volunteers who get paid a little for the huge amounts of time they already put in?

[Peach]

I think the Div III and the others mentioned are two different kinds of events. By definition, the Div III is restricted by ability, as reflected in classification, to include only fencers who are theoretically at lower level of their development.

The veterans, Div I, Junior, and Cadet, events are not restricted by ability and are point events for selecting national teams, which the Div III is not. They are restricted by age, but I'm allowed to compete in the Veterans despite my A classification, last time I looked.

The Division II is borderline. However, the better coaches use it as a training event for their up-and-coming fencers, to give them national experience, and as such may continue to serve the USFA in part of its mission to develop the strength of the sport both nationally and internationally.

I think, from public statements I've read, that the USFA is turning toward encouraging fencers who are at a lower level to gain more experience at local and regional tournaments rather than gain it at national-level tournaments. If you think about it, though it's fun (and quite unusual) for fencers to be able to compete at a national level as novices, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Speaking as a referee, it's not that unusual in Div III to have people show up on the strip who do not have proper equipment, don't know how to hook up or deal with a referee, and even some who have never competed in a tournament before. I don't think an NAC should be your first event if there are ANY tournaments available in your division.

[oiuyt]

Originally posted by CarlKnoch
Speaking of that, are the regional/sectional officers paid positions? Are they full time or are they more like volunteers who get paid a little for the huge amounts of time they already put in?

Speaking as a Section Chair, at least for my section it's a volunteer position. As in not paid even a little for the time. Of course the exact same is true for the people that are running the national level tournaments as well. We have a paid national office staff that deals with parts of this (entry collection/recording, etc., probably more than I'm aware of) as part of their full-time paid positions. The members of such as the USFA Tournament Committee (or other BoD or committee/subcommittee positions) are volunteer.

The regional level doesn't want that responsibility, and more than likely won't respond with more regional tourneys without funding from the National office.

Funny, I don't remember any additional funding going out to create the RYC system this past year. Seems to have worked fairly well so far. Some of these tournaments were large existing tournaments that got coopted into being RYCs. Others were created primarily by declaration. It took a bit of prompting and support from the national level, and poof, we have the beginnings of an extensive regional system. As this gets expanded and improved upon it'll likely be extended to other levels. Yes, some of this is already done in various regional/sectional circuits (PCCs, MARC, Great Lakes, Southwest Sectional Circuit, etc.) or events (Pdt, etc.) which will merge smoothly into a newly formed Regional Circuit framework. In other places these regional mega-tournaments will be added. Existing events will be expanded, new events will be added. The West Coast already has a good senior circuit. Other parts of the country likely will after, in the next few years, the national office makes a push for regions to create them. Funding from the national level is not needed (a good thing given that it's not available). Support and prompting probably are (for the parts of the country that aren't already doing this).

Such regional circuits should be financially self-sufficient. PdT is certainly a huge money maker for NE division. PCCs don't seem to be having any problem. National money isn't what's needed.

-B :)