|
Post by swordmaster on Apr 25, 2006 22:40:06 GMT -6
There is talk in the section about eliminating the wavier of fees for the top three finishers in the previous years SSCC events in the coming season. I would like to know your thoughts, as fencers, about this so I have created this poll.
Thank you for your participation!
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 26, 2006 0:01:20 GMT -6
I worked hard to try and take a top 3 position, and was very disappointed when I ended up taking 4th, by 10 points. It was definitely an incentive for me to compete in all the events I could.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 26, 2006 6:22:31 GMT -6
I'm not exactly a top player, myself, but I can't help but feel such an incentive plays a part. In several cases I'm sure it determines whether some fencers attend only a couple or all of the SSCC events.
Scott, you're in retail, you should know... Free always gets attention.
|
|
|
Post by delafequiana on Apr 26, 2006 16:35:00 GMT -6
I think it should be 3 free and 3 more half price! That would be another incentive I think. It gets the strongest fencers a little more motivation for showing up, plus what else are we spending the section's money on? We don't get newletters anymore.
|
|
|
Post by jkray8472 on Apr 26, 2006 16:37:53 GMT -6
The reason this is currently being discussed is purely financial. Assume an average cost of $40 per tournament. If the top three finishers in each weapon for each sex all register for an SSCC event, that would cost the section $720 in registration fees for that tournament.
Since the tournament itself only pays the Section $1 per individual fencer, that would be a considerable debt. The cost has not been that extreme so far, because only a few of these finalists attend each tournament, and I *believe* that currenly the SSCC only pays for half the entry fee.
If all 18 finishers attended every SSCC event next year, it would have a severely detrimental effect on the SSCC's finances--thus the reason for it being discussed at Sectionals.
This is not to say that I am against some sort of "prize" for the top finishers, but I wanted everyone here to know that this discussion is not based on a whim, but on financial consideration.
|
|
|
Post by swordmaster on Apr 26, 2006 16:56:54 GMT -6
JKRay, I posed the question so that I could get a sample of the fencers reaction to the question. I did not intend for it to be a forum for the reasons behind the decision. There are those in the section who think that the majority of fencers don't care whether they can fence for free or not...that they will come just to be able to compete for the sake of getting better or "beating" the top fencer. I am trying to get a feel for how the fencers REALLY think. Let's leave the financial discussion for the meeting in two weeks.
|
|
|
Post by S Simpson on Apr 26, 2006 17:06:42 GMT -6
I also worked hard to try to get into the top 3 so I could "win" some free fencing for next year. I actually achieved my goal & now am a little pissed that they are thinking of taking that away from those of us who did & always do support the SSCC events with our hard earned $$$. I always saw the top 3 positions as a chance for those of us who are not "A's" to have some of their perks. I'll be disappointed if they decide to take away this "prize" & not offer an equal to compensate ($40 x 6 or 7 events).
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Apr 26, 2006 19:13:54 GMT -6
Perhaps instead of completely taking it away, allow them to fence for either no event fees or give them a "freebie" coupon?
|
|
|
Post by bonemeister on Apr 26, 2006 20:39:27 GMT -6
i know we at UTSA the few that compete made it a personal goal to go to each circuit cup in the hopes of getting to fence for free fo rthe next year if it is decided that it will be stopped i feel at the very least it should still be inplace for the upcoming season since that is what was said in the beginning of this season.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 26, 2006 23:54:42 GMT -6
I want to restate the question.
I was a starving college kid once. Now, I have money. I have a good job. I make good money. I'm not at all worried about me or my family. I can pay our way. I just wish my body would cooperate with my spirt! (Can I buy a decade from someone?)
What I do worry about is that some kid can't go because of finances! That really bothers me! I'd be more than happy to put some money into some sort of scholarship fund so any kid who needs help can draw against it and go fence!
Hey, Schlager, I trust you! You aren't even in my division, but you and Maupin have always stepped up to the plate when we needed your help... like for Grace's club when they first started up and ran a tourney. Would you administer some sort of trust fund so kids can go fence and not worry how they'll be able to pay for it?
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 27, 2006 0:00:12 GMT -6
Oh, by the way, I voted "no". Money is not the issue for me. I just wish I had a back that worked any more! What I want is for the kids to get to do what I did almost 30 years ago!
|
|
|
Post by thecarpinator on Apr 27, 2006 0:34:18 GMT -6
For half the people, money is an issue, for the other half respect is the issue. Raise the price for everyone else to make up the difference... that's my vote anyway... personally the 50 bucks or whatever doesn't make much difference to me compared to the bank I dropped on fencing over the years...
Why do I fence in the SSCC's? I might be kidding myself, but I'm hoping that if guys like Jonathan Bibb can learn to kick my ass at the SSCC tournaments then they realize they can kick everyone else's asses at the NAC's. Like Jonathan did to me at the Gold Blade and then to everyone else at the Sacramento NAC. (Congrats on your first Div I points dude!!!!!!)
That's all I got to say about that...
JBC
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Apr 27, 2006 11:14:00 GMT -6
Jim,
Well, there you have it. That right there is EXACTLY why we put together the SSCC in the first place. Seems like its doing its job pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 27, 2006 11:21:30 GMT -6
Hey, Schlager, I trust you! Silly man.... Your idea has merit. It is more a matter of creating simple and reasonable criteria to determine who get the funds. Almost any system like that can be set up. What is nigh on to impossible is to have anyone this side of Gandhi adminster it without someone crying "Foul!" and stirring up accusations of favoritism and corruption. Money not only corrupts those who have it, but also those who would judge those who have it.
|
|
|
Post by Evelyn S on Apr 27, 2006 21:24:05 GMT -6
In my case, no, not really. The decision is made sort of like this: 75% will the best fencers be there, 25% how much trouble is it to get there (schedule + hotel availability/price + entry fees + distance to travel). If the best fencers will be there, I'm fortunate in that the "trouble" part doesn't matter too much. On the other hand, if the best fencers aren't going to be there, then there's not much incentive for me to go. The free entry (being in the top 3 of the circuit) is mostly to me about bragging rights...and I don't like to brag...usually...haha This is not to mention that most of the SSCCs let A's in free or at least waive the entry fee. If the LOCs chose not to do this for A's (or give less of a discount, like half off, or something) then the SSCC prize of free entry might be more valuable... not to mention the LOC might recoup some of this lost revenue from the now-paying A's. As far as non-A's who make the top 3 of the SSCC and get to fence for free - that's a really nice prize. I'm sure there would be quite a loud *FOUL* from opponents and bookkeepers alike, but I'd like to see something along the lines of a cascading SSCC award: for example 1st getting all free entry next season, 2-3 75% off, 4-8 50% off, etc. More people get awards, but there's still interest in making the top few places. Now, I love getting the benefits of A-hood such as fencing for free, but I see the end (or a reduction) of this benefit approaching as we get more A's (and as some regularly pre-register and then don't show up). IMO all but a handfull of us could not say that our mere presence at a tournament would require that our entry fee be waived. I think you ought to be willing to support the tournament by paying something. An interesting subject, to be sure. My $0.02
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 27, 2006 21:33:40 GMT -6
Waiving the fees for A rated fencers in Men's Epee, at least, seems like leaving a lot of money on the table, and it's not like if one or two don't show up the tournament is ruined. On the other hand, Sabre really could use the opportunity to compete on a higher level. Of course, fees and such are up to the LOCs, but I think free entry for all As is something we may be growing out of.
|
|
|
Post by jazz007 on May 4, 2006 0:48:08 GMT -6
So, I fence the SSCCs for a variety of reasons.
First and foremost in my mind, I see it as hugely beneficial to WS that I go and fence. I attended ALL 5 SSCCs this year, and the only one I did not fence was Gold Blade, due to yet another knee problem - I like to feel that WS fencers can see my name on a prereg list and say, "Yes, she'll be there with all her hyperness on," and that maybe this will help them decide to attend.
Also, I attend to try to improve. WS is, as we've all observed, an interesting field here in the section.
I don't really mind the fees. I like the top three waiver - it does give me something to work toward, a reward waiting for acheiving certain results. The fact that I pay to fence does not, as I've shown, keep me from entering tournaments. A higher price, though, would definitely make me think twice about going.
I apologize in advance if this is a slightly meandering post... just wanted to put thoughts down while they're fresh, but the sleepy is interfering!
|
|