New Qualification Paths to National Events

[edew]

Originally posted by swordsen
They create the summer nationals so that therer will be a big event for people to fence in then decide it is too big Failure to plan for success. I see this as a step backwards.

I completely agree. The problem is not in having too many fencers. The problem is having incompetent personnel at the bout committee table, not knowing whether to run the next bout or hold back. Time and again, at the Austin Summer Nationals (and others), we see all fencers sitting around waiting for their next bout and nothing happens. The BC folks wait and wait because they don't know what should go next. Having some FOC folks there meddling in the process is just an example of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

Get better technology, quicker turn-around time to move bouts along, and it should be no problem to handle tournaments with 400+ competitors in a single event.

[mrvegas]

These new requirements are awful. My guess is that the USFA gets the lion's share of its money from the USOC, and as for those of us who aren't world level -- well, where else will we go? They'll still get our money, so what do they care?

I used to sympathise with the USFA national -- there are, after all, only a few people with any sort of full-time status. However, the national organization as a whole seems to consistently have a pretty low opinion of its membership. While claiming to want more participation both at events and at the organizational level, it continues to restrict member's access to events and information. Summer Nationals should be a big tournament, that's the whole point.

On a personal level, as a B in both foil and epee, this puts me on the fence for qualifying in a Section that is getting harder every year, but rarely has a Sectional Qualifier with more than 32 fencers in an event. Heaven forbid, will I have to fence sabre?

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by oiuyt
(snip)
The major change is in the 30->25% change. There is no way that this is removing half of the qualified fencers in any event.
(snip)
The big change was in the requirement that D3 participants have to qualify (other than the warm-body requirement that we previously had).
-B

I think you just contradicted yourself. Eliminating the "warm body" qualification for Div 3 would have effectively eliminated over half of the D3 qualifiers from Michigan Division last summer--a significant difference.

Did all of those qualifying to D3 go? No. Would it have made a difference in the numbers at National? Yes, but as you point out how big a difference is anybody's guess; there are no hard numbers to judge by. The point is that those people could have gone had they wanted to spend the time and money; under this new system, that option is denied them.

In the end, I don't know what impact this change will have on the health of fencing as a whole in the US, but I know what the impact will be personnally: Barring a severe fluctuation in the Reality/Space/Time Continuum, I will never qualify for Summer Nationals. I'm not that good. Which is a shame.

They should at least have left the "warm body backdoor" ajar at Sectionals, if not at Divisionals...

[KShan5[PrFC]]

If I understand what Peach is saying, there is still a "warm body requirement" for Vets, as long as you fence at one other Vet tournament. So, depending on age, in time you will be able to.

[edew]

For both Lochinvar and MrVegas, I can't really sympathize with your inability to attend Nationals. That's really your problem and not USFA's. While you two (and possibly many others) are treading water, there are plenty of new fencers who are genuinely qualifying (because someone has to, and if not you, someone else) to attend.

Perhaps a more equitable compromise would be to have 50% of those who attend the Div II qualifiers and are eligible for Div III to qualify to Div III. 25% is a bit too draconian, although it does make it easier for everyone to remember. Perhaps they should have kept it at 30%.

I also predict a smaller than usual crowd at this year's Nationals, partly because it's in Charlotte NC, and so a number of the west coast fencers might have to consider otherwise whether to attend.

Another way to make it more accomodating is to provide representative numbers from each division and section. Some divisions are fairly large and should get more than the standard 25%. Some are small and will use the minimum of 3 (or 8) to qualify more than the 25%. And, it further encourages divisions and sections to build up the membership base, which I believe is clearly a win for all involved, including the USFA.

[dberke]

I think it's interesting to note that these proposed changes also would tend to make fencing at Sectionals far less necessary. Looking at the qualification paths, the only people who would fence at sectionals would be:

- Fencers trying to qualify for Div I-A (top 25% qualify)
- Juniors (top 25% qualify)
- Veterans (all warm bodies qualify)

I can see little reason for a Div III fencer to attend sectionals (unless they're a veteran) since it's likely that the top slots will go to the A & B fencers. (And if the Div III fencers don't show up, that reduces the number of stronger fencers who would qualify for Div I-A due to the smaller attendance!) Not having Sectionals as a second chance to qualify for Div II or Div III really seems like overkill - they should have left that qualification path in. At least they could have seen what effect the new 25% rule for Div III has on the size of the event before adding yet another restriction.

I think this year all Div III fencers who don't qualify due to these new restrictions should file an appeal with the USFA on the basis that the new rules are counterproductive. Maybe if they're overwhelmed with appeals, they'll reconsider these limitations and focus on actually figuring out how to run a large event efficiently rather than artificially limiting the competitors!

Dan

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Ummm I think Lochnivar pointed out that Juniors is no longer a sectional qualifier, but the divisional tournament is.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by dberke
Not having Sectionals as a second chance to qualify for Div II or Div III really seems like overkill - they should have left that qualification path in.

From what I'm reading, they did. If you qualify for Div 1-A, you automatically qualify for Div II; and if you qualify for Div II, you automatically qualify for Div III. Assuming that your rating doesn't prevent you from doing so, that is.

Am I missing something?

[rsy]

Originally posted by lochinvar
Under the new rules, Juniors will qualify to the Nat. Championships by placing in the top 25% of their Divisional Junior qualifier. There is no provision for qualifying Juniors out of Sectionals, as in the past. In other words, the Divisions will have to add Junior qualifiers to their list of events, a task that was formerly handled by the Sections.

lochinvar- I think you misread the provision. Qualifying path #1 for the U19 Nationals remains the sectionals, not the divisions. The only change in path # 1 is to reduce the % of qualifiers fro 30% to 25%

I looked at the MidAtlantic U19 Sectional from 2002 because our section has not yet posted the 2003 results (I hope no one is still waiting to fing out if they qualified). Assuming that 2004 is reasonably close to 2002, the section would qalify 2 less fencers each for U19 MF & ME and 1 less fencer for U19 MS. There are 10 sections in the USFA and if this experience holds true on the average throughout, then, assuming that all who qualify compete, this qualifying change will only result in 10-20 less fencers per weapon. For U19 MF last summer that would have meant 3 less pools, the DE's would still have been from 128, but with 16 more byes (I think). Since they were double stripping anyhow, that would have meant a saving of two strips and 1 or 2 referees. That does not seem like a big saving to me. I would prefer to have the extra 10-20 kids qualify and make the extra effort to let them compete.

I understand the change with regard to DIV III. This past Summer the DIV III MF had 294 entrants! That was an overwhelming number. But if you look at it, almost 70 of them were from the Tx divisions. Of the remaing divisions, the bigger ones like NJ, NY, CA, PA sent only 8-10 fencers. From NJ, of the 9 or 10 that went for DIV III, over half also qualified and competed in DIV II. That is why DIV II had 243 MF, also an overwhelming number.

I think that the changes will reduce the DIV III and DIV II MF field down to around 200 each. That is still pretty large, but a significant drop and probably a pretty good idea.

-r

[dberke]

Originally posted by Inquartata
From what I'm reading, they did. If you qualify for Div 1-A, you automatically qualify for Div II; and if you qualify for Div II, you automatically qualify for Div III. Assuming that your rating doesn't prevent you from doing so, that is.

Am I missing something?

From my understanding, they no longer let you qualify at Sectionals for Div II unless you qualify for Div I-A as you mentioned. I was suggesting that they retain the system from last year, where the top 25% (last year 30%) qualify for Div I-A, then the top 25% of those remaining and eligible (and not already qualified) qualify for Div II. Then, apply the same rule for Div III - the next 25% who are eligible and not already qualified make it for Div III.

The new changes don't seem to allow any qualifications for Div II or Div III at Sectionals unless you also qualify for the next higher rank. So unless you make the cut for Div I-A at sectionals, you can't qualify for Div II or III at that event.

So, a Div III fencer who is fencing well at Sectionals most likely won't qualify if there are a lot of very strong (A & B) fencers present. They only way he'd qualify for Div II or III is by placing in the top 25% (and probably earn at least a C by doing so!)

Dan

[KShan5[PrFC]]

That would be stellar, qualifying for Div 1-A, II and III and getting a C all in one day.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Since our club will be hosting the Divisional qualifiers, I guess we need to have this figured out pretty quickly. Maybe I'm missing something here, but in regards to the Div 3/Div 2 qualifier:

Before, when we held the meet, everyone who fenced (the warm body rule) made Div 3, the top 30% made Div 2. Now, if the Div 3 aspirants want to go to Charlotte, they have to make the cut at 25% of a Div 2 meet. This means they are forced to compete with C ranked fencers for a slot at a meet that no C fencer can legally attend. Does this seem fair?

For Div 3 purposes, are we allowed to eliminate the Cs from the final table to get the 25% of remaining Div 3 eligible fencers?

And what if a pre-qualified fencer takes part in any qualifier meet? Do they now bump out people who will otherwise qualify if the pre-qual is eliminated from the final results?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

No top 25% of those who are NOT Cs, or are Ds, Es and Us make Div III. Tope 25% over all makes div II. If I read correctly.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Third time's the charm for reading it, I guess. It would appear that the bout committee compiles two results lists...one overall with all Div 2/3 fencers, and a second list of 25% fencers with the Cs eliminated. Good enough.

Now, what about pre-qualified fencers competing? What do we do with them?

[Inquartata]

Burn them in effigy?

[rsy]

Originally posted by dberke
I was suggesting that they retain the system from last year, where the top 25% (last year 30%) qualify for Div I-A, then the top 25% of those remaining and eligible (and not already qualified) qualify for Div II.

Dan- That was not the system.

The senior sectionals were and are the qualifying path to DIV I-A Nationals. Last year the top 30%, but no less than 10, qualified. The back door to DIV II was that the top 6 finishers at the Sr Sectionals (assuming they were C or under) were also qualified for DIV II. This year the top 25%, but no less than 8, qualify from the Sr Sectionals for DIV I-A, but all those qualifiers become eligible for DIV II, assuming they are classified as C or under at the start of the Sectionals. That means that the back door from the Sr Sectionals to DIV II is actually bigger. Likewise, path #2 to DIV III Nationals is anyone qualified for DIV II so there is still a back door to DIV III to any D or under fencer who qualifies for DIV I-A at the Sr Sectionals.

And it can be done. Last year my oldest son qualified for DIV I-A, DIV II, DIV III, U19 & U19 Team MF. He had a great time a did a whole lot of fencing.

-r

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Burn them in effigy?

Actually, I was thinking about sending them to your club, dressed in tye-dye colored uniforms, to scream fencing-themed Christmas carol adaptations at the top of their little lungs! You'll especially enjoy the little tyke dressed as Epee Tim who reads algebraic passages from the Saxon Math textbook.

[Dee EffEll]

Originally posted by rsy
The back door to DIV II was that the top 6 finishers at the Sr Sectionals (assuming they were C or under) were also qualified for DIV II. This year the top 25%, but no less than 8, qualify from the Sr Sectionals for DIV I-A, but all those qualifiers become eligible for DIV II, assuming they are classified as C or under at the start of the Sectionals. That means that the back door from the Sr Sectionals to DIV II is actually bigger.

No, you draw an incorrect conclusion. The qualifying path to nationals for DivII via the sectional championship used to exclude those who otherwise qualifed for DivII through the divisional Div II qualifier. It no longer does. This makes the "door" smaller. DivII fencers who qualified at the divisional level will often wish to qualify for IA, and in so doing, potentially take a "spot" for DivII they wouldn't have taken under last year's rules.

Thanks to whoever pointed out that the DivII division qualifier has to be a DivII event per the ops manual. Not familiar with that document.

I am in agreement with Edew - this will greatly reduce the size of summer nationals. If this is what the USFA intended, they will likely get it in spades. From what I could tell, Edew is exactly right - it wasn't the actual size of the event that was the problem in Austin - it was that it was poorly managed. It wasn't planned well. They didn't have enough directors. They didn't have enough management in place. Crikey, they didn't even have enough chairs. I have been giving some though to getting a director's rating, practicing my skills so I can be a competent director, so I can give back to my sport. But ya know, this latest from the USFA tells me they don't want their Big Event to be so big, because they don't have the energy or committment (or are too busy with The Olympics(r)) to find the right people to run it. Well, lump it. I think I just got told "we don't want so many of you here" by the USFA. I can oblige.

Already registered for the Duel in the Desert. I'll take my summer nationals budget with me. Heck, my odds of winning at blackjack and craps is about what it is at winning div II. Nearly zero. Nearly. But ya know, the Flamingo and the DITD organizers seem to want me to come there.

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by rsy
lochinvar- I think you misread the provision. Qualifying path #1 for the U19 Nationals remains the sectionals, not the divisions.
-r

You're right, I misread it. Thanks for pointing out the correction.

[edew]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Third time's the charm for reading it, I guess. It would appear that the bout committee compiles two results lists...one overall with all Div 2/3 fencers, and a second list of 25% fencers with the Cs eliminated. Good enough.

Now, what about pre-qualified fencers competing? What do we do with them?

Still, you mentioned a possible problem: suppose a C fencer does well enough to guarantee making the Div II cut. He could potentially drop his next bout to help a friend or whatever and could possibly jeopardize the overall results and prevent a Div III eligible fencer from qualifying.

We might want to reconsider how to run the tournaments. I'd hate to not qualify because of bad call for a touch in the pools set my indicators or TS down by one or so.