|
Post by schlager7 on Sept 24, 2009 16:36:38 GMT -6
oiuyt posted this yesterday on Fnet, but since it directly reflects concerns heard in this division at various points, back and forth, for over a decade (and since we all know SOME type of changes are ultimately coming to the divisions in the near future) it seemed appropriate to repeat it here.Motion: The US Fencing Operations manual will be modified as listed in attachment, effective on 8/1/2010. Rationale: I believe that most people would agree that recent years have seen an increased amount of divisiveness and difficulty in our US Fencing Divisions. These problems have occurred in every part of the country, from the largest to the smallest Divisions and have taken on a number of forms. This motion is intended to address what is, in my opinion, the structural reason for these problems. The motion contains a number of changes to the US Fencing Operations Manual and is designed to do the following: 1. Move the primary sanctioning of non-qualifier events from the division level to the Club level. 2. Create an appeals process where, if any tournament is run contrary to the rules contained elsewhere in the Operations Manual the tournament may lose its sanctioned status and where, if the fault is considered to be particularly serious or repetitive, the entity that sanctioned the tournament may be barred from doing so in the future. I believe that changing the operations manual in this way will lessen the problems our Divisions are having because I believe that the basic root causes of those problems are money and access to fencing opportunities. Fencing tournaments, if sufficiently large and well attended can make a significant amount of money. Therefore it behooves a club to hold as many large tournaments as possible. It is much easier to have a large tournament if there are no other tournaments in your area that compete with you and if you get to have more tournaments. Fencers also want to have a large number of appropriate (in terms of age/skill level/weapon/etc.) tournaments to attend. Fencers are always happier if the tournament well run and are usually happier if the tournament is relatively big. Currently, the division’s executive committee (and sometimes a delegated tournament committee or sub-group of the division executive committee) is responsible for meeting these challenges. In some cases various groups have taken over the leadership of a division and then sanctioned tournaments to the benefit of certain clubs or groups of people to the detriment (or at least perceived detriment) to other clubs or groups of people. In other divisions, the contestants for influence, fearful or unwilling to share power, are deadlocked. In those places no one interest dominates the others, but nothing gets accomplished. Instead of developing the sport, the divisions are paralyzed and energy is diverted into unproductive, distracting and off-putting personal attacks and infighting. In either situation, instead of fostering our sport, we are driving people away. I have no doubt that this will cause new problems and that there are a number of both intended and unintended consequences from this fundamental change to our structure. Thus, this motion is designed to take effect on August 1, 2010, over 10 months after it is initially proposed. This is imperative so that everyone will have time to provide input on whether or not the cure is more harmful than the disease, on how this motion may be improved and to prepare should this motion pass.
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Sept 24, 2009 22:42:33 GMT -6
Perhaps someone steeped in the minutia of the rules could explain how this will intersect with our division's rules on reserved weekends and so forth? In particular, do we think this will help clubs that are small enough to hover on the edge of the ten-member limit for USFA club membership? I suppose the club certification refers to USFA clubs, so I suppose not. Still, I'm interested in how this is all supposed to work here, in particular.
K O'N
|
|
|
Post by fox on Sept 25, 2009 7:21:35 GMT -6
This has come up elsewhere. There are other divisions with rules governing exclusive weekends.
I would presume, since it would remove the division as a sanctioning entity, that exclusive weekends would evaporate. As I understand it, the division's ability to deny sanction to a tournament that would be scheduled opposite a club's exclusive weekend would no longer exist. That is the division's chief method of enforcing its edicts.
Pretty much, it opens every date for a potential free-for-all.
I imagine this will also eliminate any regulation of how long a period of time a tournament must be advertised because, again, the division will be unable to enforce any such regulations since it cannot give or deny sanction.
More than a catfight over a particular date, I would be concerned over tournaments that are held with little or no fanfare, strictly for the benefit of the host club and its fencers and sending off classification changes.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Sept 25, 2009 8:13:52 GMT -6
If you read the supporting material linked to on the F.Net post, there are standards in place for publicity, which should help with the "for the benefit of one club's fencers" bit.
|
|
|
Post by kburnham on Sept 25, 2009 16:19:25 GMT -6
I'm a little worried about the fact that any member in a section can dispute the sanctioned status of any tournament held in that section. Also, the wording that a minor complaint will be allowed to slide once but not twice is a little worrying as well. If the Division is the one making those calls, instead of helping to coordinating things ahead of time, it seems like that would make Division politics rather more negative than had been previously the case, at least in those divisions where things had been going pretty well up to now.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Oct 1, 2009 20:09:40 GMT -6
Since I am voting on this, I would like some feedback. There are definite guidelines over advertising times and methods, but that may need to be tightened.
There are guidelines for people whom challenge a tournament sanctioning, and for an appeal of an overturn of sanctioning by the division. We may need to develop guidelines to eliminate this being on ongoing game by some divisions.
I do disagree with John over the USFA's stance on sanctioning. The USFA gains most if new members sign up for membership because of USFA tournaments. A 100 person tournament and 4 25 person tournaments may have a very different economic impact on the USFA. Long term clubs often benefit not from the short term economic impact of a tournament, but from having motivated members recruiting other members.
The rational of the USFA on local sanctioning should be on what benefits the USFA the most, (fencing gaining membership/money and popularity/long term money). The rational of local divisons is often how can the leadership gain while hurting its competition. This solution seems like a check/balance on the local division doing that.
Fortunately, we have several months before the vote. I should not be as busy with my current assignment then.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Oct 1, 2009 21:56:13 GMT -6
I do disagree with John over the USFA's stance on sanctioning. Actually, if you re-read my post, I took no stance. I merely brought up the topic.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Oct 2, 2009 7:31:27 GMT -6
Okay, I will be one to pose a question. Let's suppose each club can hold as many tournaments as they want whenever they want. Everyone gets sanctioned and can offer the hope of better letter classifications.
Currently, there are exclusive weekends in the Gulf Coast Division. Each club is offered one.
If Kevin O'Neill and BFE over in Lake Jackson get a date that is theirs alone, as things stand right now, someone in our division wanting to compete that weekend has to go there (or some event outside the division).
Under the new system Louise, Augie, Andrey, Mauro, everyone else can schedule opposite Kevin's bunch and offer the same hope of a better ranking. Why would a fencer in Houston drive to Lake Jackson?
It seems this new system benefits large clubs in the major metropolitan area to the detriment of clubs outside of Houston trying to grow in more difficult settings.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Oct 2, 2009 16:32:16 GMT -6
Re: Club-Based Sanctioning of Tournaments « Reply #7 Today at 7:31am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, I will be one to pose a question. Let's suppose each club can hold as many tournaments as they want whenever they want. Everyone gets sanctioned and can offer the hope of better letter classifications.
Currently, there are exclusive weekends in the Gulf Coast Division. Each club is offered one.
If Kevin O'Neill and BFE over in Lake Jackson get a date that is theirs alone, as things stand right now, someone in our division wanting to compete that weekend has to go there (or some event outside the division).
Under the new system Louise, Augie, Andrey, Mauro, everyone else can schedule opposite Kevin's bunch and offer the same hope of a better ranking. Why would a fencer in Houston drive to Lake Jackson?
It seems this new system benefits large clubs in the major metropolitan area to the detriment of clubs outside of Houston trying to grow in more difficult settings. Dear Fox,
I agree this is potentially the situation, but you are only thinking Houston and not the fencing universe in general. Here are current divisional situations that I have become aware of:
1. One division that has a rule that 5' wide strips are illegal for any divisional tournaments, (their opposing club has 5' wide strips), and the caveat that you can't utilize a gym. (Kevin's club and the Fete de Lune out). 2. One division that literally is in court continually because of the sanctioning issues. 3. One division that's division chair tells their club members that a tournament that was sanctioned the beginning of the year will not be sanctioned because there is a tournament 3 hours away, (In a different division). 4. One division did not allow a tournament be sanctioned for a charity event, (similar to the Rose Condon), because the clubs that controlled the sanctioning were not involved. 5. One division that repeatedly has sanctioning issues with tournaments, forcing many fencers from other divisions to question the USFA status of its tournaments.
Some of these scenarios cross divisions, and actually have multiple examples. I did not realize it until I began typing. I actually was picking a different division each time.
We will have issues with cross scheduling. It can get better without the external pressures being forced upon the club leaders. The clubs that work together will thrive long term, and hopefully all clubs grow. This format will provide an environment where all motivated club founders/owners/coaches can thrive. There are currently artificial restraints on fencing.
This format will allow clubs to begin a tradition that stabilizes tournament scheduling each year in the GCD. This stability may help locally. Other divisions need this sanctioning as badly as the GCD.
To answer your hypothetical question, rankings motivate the fencers tremendously. If Kevin holds a 15 person tournament, there are 4 potential new rankings. If he holds two or three a year there could be three new D's and nine new E's. Eventually ranking greed will force the D's and E's to go to Houston and I know I will send my beginners to Kevin. With the right weekend, Kevin could be hosting an A2 or A4 within a couple of years. That is the way it works.
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Oct 2, 2009 17:59:15 GMT -6
First of all, whether "Kevin", by holding a 15 person event (which is what I presume you meant by "tournament") can award 4 potential new rankings largely depends upon who shows up or is allowed to show up.
If it is an All-U tournament, only the winner gets an E, no matter the number.
If it is an E & Under, he will need to have 4 Es sign up and have at least 2 finish in the top 8 for it to be a D1 and give out 1-D & 3-Es.
I have to confess I become uneasy when our hope for success is an appeal to "greed" of any type.
As to my own concerns, the USFA has proven itself time and again to be a paper tiger. It has to be drug kicking and screaming to resolve issues within a given division. You want me to believe they will do much of anything to a club even if competitors who feel the events were operated improperly complain. On that note, I'll have to declare that I am from Missouri.
I forsee many clubs posting their upcoming tournaments on FRED only a week or so before the event happens, shutting out many from outside their club... essentially creating a virtual in-house competition that still awards letters.
People think "letter inflation" is bad now?
Then, too, where money and greed come into play, I have seen little in my life to make me feel the optimist.
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Oct 4, 2009 23:19:55 GMT -6
Okay, I will be one to pose a question. Let's suppose each club can hold as many tournaments as they want whenever they want. Everyone gets sanctioned and can offer the hope of better letter classifications. Currently, there are exclusive weekends in the Gulf Coast Division. Each club is offered one. If Kevin O'Neill and BFE over in Lake Jackson get a date that is theirs alone, as things stand right now, someone in our division wanting to compete that weekend has to go there (or some event outside the division). Under the new system Louise, Augie, Andrey, Mauro, everyone else can schedule opposite Kevin's bunch and offer the same hope of a better ranking. Why would a fencer in Houston drive to Lake Jackson? It seems this new system benefits large clubs in the major metropolitan area to the detriment of clubs outside of Houston trying to grow in more difficult settings. Aww, you guys are worried about us! That's sweet. Thank you! What you propose could be right. I read it with a little different set of concerns; if BFE or Galveston FC or someone a little out of town has a weekend planned for a long time and someone in Houston steps on our weekend, they'll look like a butthead. I think for the most part the clubs in Houston don't want to look like buttheads, so I think for the most part they won't step on us. But if they do they do. Balancing the fact that they might is the fact that we could actually have more fencing events, scheduled as we see the need coming a few weeks out. I have to say I don't really like this business of having to ask permission months in advance, and I don't like the rules about having to have been a USFA club for six months of the previous season, either. BFE, if you're worried about us, is really quite disadvantaged by that. We have about a dozen kids at any given time in the club. Of them, a few are in the band or in football and don't fence in the fall. A few never fence outside the Brazosport gym. That means that we rarely have more than ten USFA members, and certainly not before January or so most years. So getting ten to join in time to become a USFA club by February, so as to be a USFA club for six months before August of *this* year so *next* year we can request a "reserved weekend", oy, it's nonsense. So I'll be glad to have that gone. As far as what it will do, well, I don't know. I was a division chair, once upon a time. My basic vision of the division is that it's supposed to look out for the local fencers. The USFA looks out for Seth Kelsey and Kelley Hurley and schedules NACs and Summer Nationals, the Gulf Coast is supposed to look out for us. I realize that's not always the way it works in some divisions, but that's how I think of it. So the idea that our local events are going to be overseen by the USFA directly, uh... Ok. Really? They're going to be over my shoulder looking at stuff like two weeks notice and strip width and stuff like that? And we think this will work out well, do we? We think they have the manpower and the time to do that for every two bit event in the country? Wow. Perhaps more concerning to me than that is the stuff about cutting Vet NACs, and cutting up Summer Nationals into smaller events. Summer Nationals is our flagship event, it's huge, it's a circus, it's great. I like it. I'd really rather they didn't cut off Cadets or Juniors to a different date, I think that would suck. If you don't know what I'm talking about there go look up "New National Calendar" on the Fencing.net forum, it's a nice long thread of unhappiness. K O'N
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Oct 4, 2009 23:36:20 GMT -6
I think for the most part the clubs in Houston don't want to look like buttheads, so I think for the most part they won't step on us. You have far more faith than I...
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Oct 5, 2009 11:32:34 GMT -6
I think for the most part the clubs in Houston don't want to look like buttheads, so I think for the most part they won't step on us. You have far more faith than I... You know, maybe I do. I'd be more worried if there were a monolithic single club in Houston. But there's not. So perhaps we can get off the string of Clubs A, B and C all scheduling over each other. If we can, then if Club A schedules stuff over BFE, well, I can hope Clubs B and C might come to our event out of spite, eh? At any rate, what does sometimes get overlooked in the big clubs hammering at each other is that they don't necessarily want to hammer at the small clubs too. To eschew the veil of annonymity for a moment, Andrey and Mauro and Lousie have all been very nice to me, and I don't get the sense that they're waiting to pounce all over the odd weekend I schedule, or if they do they'll do it with an event of sufficiently different character that it won't matter much to me. I know the division had some problems with scheduling over each other in the past, so I hope that won't happen again, but if it does does the collective wisdom of the group think it will involve the smaller clubs too? I wasn't here during The Troubles, so I have no real basis to judge. K O'N
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Oct 5, 2009 21:16:31 GMT -6
My take is, while the larger clubs may not all join hands and sing Kumbayah, they have worries enough just running what they have.
Actually, during the period when everyone WAS scheduling every which way, there were attempts to talk and try not to have exact events on the same day.
As for myself and the clubs I am responsible to, we have always been able to stay nimble and adapt to changing circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Oct 12, 2009 16:56:08 GMT -6
Dear Aldo,
I am not certain you were reading this correctly, and there are several statements I want to address in your statement below.
1. Tournaments get potentially more difficult by two things. One is the size, and one is the quality of competition. The quality of competition is somewhat rated by the ranking which is by classifications entered. You can have a very difficult A1 in which you can be the "C" and not know what hit you, fencing multiple Olympians in your pool. That would be a great tournament. The size only makes it harder by the number of DE's in todays most common format. That means 16 to 32 to 64 to 128 to 256 gives you the additional DE bout. Sometimes, having the larger format can be very much an advantage because you don't have to excert yourself and draw fencers that don't drain your energy. As a coach I would rather send my fencer to a local 21 fencer tournament with 6 As, 3 Bs. 3 Cs and 3 Ds than a 64 person tournament with 6 As, 6 Bs, 4 Cs, 8 Ds.
2. You can possibly earn four ratings in a D1, (15 fencers no ratings in the tournament. You can possibly earn 8 new ratings in one of the higher rated tournaments.
3. The ratings are not the end-all, but ratings should be used to help differentiate pools for the first round. Particularly when DEs is used after that. I have seen some pools and first rounds that were very odd. Because ratings were not given to youth, I have seen scenarios where the three of the best fencers in 40 person tournament were in the same pool. It does not equalize the competition.
4. The rules state you can't post the week before. We have seen that and been there.
"First of all, whether "Kevin", by holding a 15 person event (which is what I presume you meant by "tournament") can award 4 potential new rankings largely depends upon who shows up or is allowed to show up.
If it is an All-U tournament, only the winner gets an E, no matter the number.
If it is an E & Under, he will need to have 4 Es sign up and have at least 2 finish in the top 8 for it to be a D1 and give out 1-D & 3-Es.
I have to confess I become uneasy when our hope for success is an appeal to "greed" of any type.
As to my own concerns, the USFA has proven itself time and again to be a paper tiger. It has to be drug kicking and screaming to resolve issues within a given division. You want me to believe they will do much of anything to a club even if competitors who feel the events were operated improperly complain. On that note, I'll have to declare that I am from Missouri.
I forsee many clubs posting their upcoming tournaments on FRED only a week or so before the event happens, shutting out many from outside their club... essentially creating a virtual in-house competition that still awards letters.
People think "letter inflation" is bad now?
Then, too, where money and greed come into play, I have seen little in my life to make me feel the optimist.
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Oct 12, 2009 21:01:57 GMT -6
Actually, the requirements for a D1 tournament have changed recently. You need at least 15 fencers. You must have 4 Es or better and at least 2 Es (or better) in the top 8.
Under the new rules, a tournament consisting of 15 "U" fencers, is an E1 now.
|
|