2018 JAN NAC Virginia Beach - Div1 byes

Discussion in 'Fencing Discussion' started by nwtrout, Dec 1, 2017.

  1. nwtrout

    nwtrout Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    7
    Heard back quickly from NO on Tuesday that it would be out in a day or two. Now, just waiting....

    Seems like it would/should be an easy thing to do based on cut-off date/times, but I get it that it was Thanksgiving weekend.

    Not great for booking travel for those that are on the cusp and may or may not get a bye. Looks promising for my fencer but its not clear what/how mail entries are handled (do people still mail in entries???)

    waiting....
     
  2. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,991
    Likes Received:
    310
  3. nwtrout

    nwtrout Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    7
    Thanks, but waiting on JAN NAC in Virginia Beach.
     
  4. Ancientepee

    Ancientepee Podium

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,084
    Likes Received:
    321
    The entry deadline for VA Beach is next Wednesday, Dec 6. In the past, I don't think that the USFA has posted the byes until some days after the late-fee deadline. There are also cases where the NO waits before certifying entries. For example, the fencer owes the USFA money for something like a bounced check or the fencer submits an entry showing an B classification but the USFA database shows a D or a foreign federation submits an entry but without complete information, etc. Also, by waiting as late as possible, the NO tries to minimize the cases where they list a fencer as getting a bye but then that fencer withdraws for some reason or another.
     
  5. nwtrout

    nwtrout Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    7
    I appreciate the reply. I would hope the systems in place would address all that, as well as honor those fencers fully paid and compliant with their entry. It also appears to conflict with info in the the Athlete Packet:

    "Tie Breaker Note: The point standings as of the day after the entry deadline will determine the priority order of fencers and alternates. Results that change the point standings between the deadline and the competition will not affect selection.

    Notification of selection will be sent by email to all fencers who have entered.

    If there are ties on the point standings, it will be resolved by the following criteria:
    • Total number of points accumulated in Group II of the selection criteria. See Chapter 3 for specific details.
    • Highest points earned at a single designated World Cup or GP used in calculating the sum of points in Group II
    • Next highest points earned at a single designated World Cup or GP until there is no tie
    • Highest place at a single designated World Cup or GP
    • Next highest place at a single designated World Cup or GP until there is no tie
    • Highest place in any U.S. national point competition
    • Next highest place in any U.S. national point competition until there is no tie
    • If there is still a tie, then the Director of Sports Performance, National Weapon Coach, and a representative from the AAC will resolve the tie

    The top 62 initially seeded persons receiving a bye will be determined immediately following the close the regular fee entry period
    ."

    Regular Entry deadline was Nov. 22. I'm anxious to book travel - given that its in the ever-so-easy-to-get-to-by-air Virginia Beach (in January).
     
  6. Ancientepee

    Ancientepee Podium

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,084
    Likes Received:
    321

    You should realize that the wording gives them extreme leeway. Note that it says "determined" and not "posted". No mention is made of when the byes will be posted. Note also the word "initially" at the beginning of the sentence. The word "initially" implies uncertainty and the possibility of change. For example: "Initially I planned to attend the NAC." An initial list is different from a final list. So, all that the sentence is really saying is that they'll produce a preliminary list internally after the regular fee deadline. As I recall, the list of byes for Portland wasn't posted until about two weeks after the late fee deadline.

    Compare the sentence in the Athlete Packet to the following which is probably closer to how you're reading their sentence:
    "A list of the top 62 seeded persons receiving a bye will be posted immediately following the close of the regular fee entry period."
     
  7. teacup

    teacup Podium

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,952
    Likes Received:
    187
    Even if the rules are in the AH and the Athlete Packet, it doesn't mean they will be followed. In Kansas City the CWE event was seeded incorrectly. Prior to the event, the NO and TC agreed the wrong points list was being used and seeding would be corrected, but at the last minute, they decided not to correct the seeding and used an old point list.

    In the AH, it states that for selection for JWCs, rolling points will be used, then after two JWCs have occurred selection will switch to team points. However, this season for the last JWE WC team points will be used for selection even though only one JWC will have occurred.

    Those are just a couple of examples of not following the rules in the AH.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2017
  8. nwtrout

    nwtrout Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    7

    I get that.

    Sadly, it is not as customer-focused as it could be. A bye means potentially one less night of hotel or a more convenient flight for athletes and/or parents - often important given time zones going from one coast to the other. And given a number of Div1 Athletes are also college athletes and a particular NAC, potentially one less day of class missed. The DEC NAC hits right before or during finals for some, and the JAN NAC Jnr. ME on Mon 1/8/18 is the start of a new term as well.

    I understanding scheduling of NACs are set and can't take in every possibility when looking at scheduling but the notification process can be improved..

    Still waiting.....
     
  9. Ancientepee

    Ancientepee Podium

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,084
    Likes Received:
    321
    Unfortunately, it's a fundamental problem both with the format and also with the way that they've implemented it. It's become an increasing problem because the USFA releases changes without first publicizing the proposed change to solicit comments and suggestions. Since most if not all of the NO consists of people who were never competitive fencers, they can not provide the expertise as to how things should be implemented with minimal negative impact. The committees are also made up of a majority of members who have not competed at a national level recently.

    At the very least, they should have phased the announcement of byes. For example, the day after the normal fee deadline they could post a preliminary list of 32 fencers who are guaranteed to get a bye. One week later, post an expanded list with 48 names. This would allow them to replace any on the initial list of 32 who withdraw and give at least 16 more fencers advanced notice. The day after the late fee deadline post an expanded list with 60 names and one week later the "final" list of 62 names. (Numbers given here are for illustrative purposes. Maybe they should be 48, 54, 60, 62 or some other numbers based on past experience of when the top fencers' entries are being received/verified.) If they did this, 48 fencers would now know that they'll be getting byes in January and could be making travel plans as opposed to the zero fencers who currently know that they're getting byes.

    The other basic problem with the format is that the whole reason for 62 byes is so that there will be even pools of 7 on the second day when the 64 fencers from the first day are added in. But because the format does not allow for no-shows, this is not happening. In the October Div I ME, six fencers did not show up for their pools on the second day and so one third of the pools were short a fencer. Having uneven pools being used to seed a DE this late in an event is a major problem. This should have been avoided by allowing additional qualifiers from the first day sufficient to even out the pools. Many (if not all) of these fencers made travel arrangements to stay the second day because they hoped to qualify directly rather than as an alternate and would be more than happy to be allowed to continue to compete. At least one of the ME fencers on the list of 62 getting byes in Portland will be a no-show because he decided to fence in the Grand Prix in Doha instead and so again we will have uneven pools.

    The USFA should adopt a policy of publicizing major changes for comments and suggestions before these changes are implemented. It would also be helpful if there was some mechanism for members to make suggestions.
     
    hello? and jdude97 like this.
  10. Strytllr

    Strytllr DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    87
    What would be even more helpful if there was a mechanism for those suggestions to be listened to. ;)
     
  11. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,991
    Likes Received:
    310
    Uh, most of those fencers made travel arrangements to stay the second day because they were "allowed to continue to compete" the second day (and did), no matter how they did the first day.
     
  12. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,626
    Likes Received:
    1,300
    Are World Cups and Grand Prix ever afflicted with this problem?
     
  13. Ancientepee

    Ancientepee Podium

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,084
    Likes Received:
    321
    I think that someone told me in October that between 20-25% of the fencers who got knocked out in the last table on the first day did not enter the consolation competition and the two or three that I talked to said that it was because they were so disappointed that they didn't make the second day. I suspect that they would have fenced the next day if it was the continuation of the Div I even if their qualification had been as alternates.
     
  14. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,991
    Likes Received:
    310
    Looking through the Oct Div1 ME results, it appears the 2nd day pool construction method follows the (World Cup?) approach where pools aren't relaid out for no-shows. That means the Oct event was lucky some pools were short only one fencer. Depending on who no-shows, pools could lose more than one fencer if they're not relaid out. And theoretically, 6 no-shows could drop a pool down to a single fencer. (That could be an entertaining FT test case)
     
    hello? likes this.
  15. jdude97

    jdude97 Podium

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    200
    I believe at the Oct Div1 ME day 2, one pool was short 2 fencers, and they did balance the pools through some mechanism. I see no reason not to have a reseed with the no-shows. Seems patently unfair and avoidable to have large pool strength disparity due to no shows when there's an easy fix. There is minimal benefit to publishing the day 2 pools the night before, certainly not enough benefit to justify the downsides.

    As for ancientepee's proposal to publish preliminary lists of byes, while that would be marginally helpful, it doesn't actually solve much. I'd expect at least 48 of the registered fencers already know they have byes because they're in the top 62 on the rankings. It's the people ranked 70-110 who really need to know.
     
  16. Ancientepee

    Ancientepee Podium

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,084
    Likes Received:
    321
    Back in the 1970s when you didn't have to check in and they laid out the pools based on the pre-entries, there was once a first-round pool at the Nationals (Div I only at that time) of 5 with 4 no-shows. It was one of last pools to be sent out and by the time they realized what the situation was, they stopped the competition and went around to the other pools but found only one fencer who hadn't fenced his first bout yet. At the time, the top 3 fencers promoted out of each pool regardless of bout or touch indicators. They told the fencer that he was being moved to another pool. He protested but was told that since he would be in a pool of 2, he was guaranteed promotion into the next round. The "pool" was fenced and he promoted with zero victories.
     
  17. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,991
    Likes Received:
    310

    Investigated further and it looks like Pool 2 was indeed short two fencers initially (seeds #35 and #38 missed the event):

    2 (Pryor) 35 (S. FREIMAN - no show) 38 (RAMIREZ - no show ) 71 (Cole) 74 (Doss) 107 (Mechkov) 110 (Park)

    Instead of leaving Pool 2 with only five fencers, a fencer was moved from another pool.

    Simply moving seed #36 to replace the missing #35 would have swiped a fencer from pool 1 leaving it with 6 fencers and violating the "#1 seed is in the largest pool" USFA requirement. The next seed, #37, was also in Pool 1 so moving him wouldn't work either. Seed #38 was already assigned to Pool 2 so moving him to the pool he was already in wouldn't help. And Seed #38 didn't show up anyway -- he was the second missing fencer from Pool 2.

    So seed #39 got moved from Pool 3 to Pool 2 leaving both pools with six fencers.

    While swiping a fencer from another pool saved Pool 2 from only having five fencers, the way it was done left it, and Pool 3, as far less balanced pools than (re-)seeding the pools using the list of fencers actually present at the event would have.
     
  18. nwtrout

    nwtrout Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    7
    Another question that needs confirmation :
    Is the list of 62 fencers earning a bye established by those meeting the Regular entry deadline? As well as those possibly confirmed/validated after any paper/registration/payment issues that prevent them from registering in time as AncientEpee refers to above?

    The Dec 2016 NAC appears to confirm it is those registered by the regular deadline. I was surprised last year seeing Yeisser Ramirez as the 153rd seed in the Div1 ME and not getting a bye. The conversations at the event said it was because of missing the regular deadline. But I'm not sure where he was on the points list at that time.
    http://results.usfencingresults.org/2016-2017/2016.12-DEC-NAC/FTEvent_2016Dec02_DV1ME.htm
     
  19. mfp

    mfp Podium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,991
    Likes Received:
    310
    He was in the mid-30s on the ME Sr R points list around the time of that registration deadline.

    Archives of many of the points lists can be found under "Rankings Archives" on usfencing.org. The 2016-17 archive looks to include everything but Vets points lists.
     
  20. Ancientepee

    Ancientepee Podium

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,084
    Likes Received:
    321
    http://www.usafencing.org/rankings-archive
     

Share This Page