|
Post by Deanicus on Nov 19, 2006 21:33:32 GMT -6
What exactly are we going to do with the teams for SWIFA 2 and a half? It's doubtful that all of the teams that still need to finish up will be able to bring the exact team they had this weekend (let's hope for the best, but... yeah). Is this going to force them to be disqualified? Or can they just build a new team to replace with the one that should've been fencing? Both options seem unfair.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Nov 20, 2006 9:53:03 GMT -6
What exactly are we going to do with the teams for SWIFA 2 and a half? It's doubtful that all of the teams that still need to finish up will be able to bring the exact team they had this weekend (let's hope for the best, but... yeah). Is this going to force them to be disqualified? Or can they just build a new team to replace with the one that should've been fencing? Both options seem unfair. I don't think disqualification is the answer. We may have to allow substitution of some of the members of the squads. We may have to jockey some dates to accommodate their different schedules. I will be in contact with the coaches of the teams that were still competing and then call a meeting of the EC to see how we will handle this.
|
|
|
Post by Damaris on Nov 21, 2006 12:18:04 GMT -6
Deanicus, I belive that someone said that we should require 2 of the 3 or 4 of the team members be the same..... Sounds ok i guess.
|
|
|
Post by Damaris on Nov 21, 2006 12:33:45 GMT -6
One thing I do think about all this, of course i could be completly wrong.... but, If you get the directors that have some higher ratings, of course you have to pay them more, yet then they tend to be more relyable as far as cancelations. That kinda leads into the thing I wanna bring up at the last meets of the year about rasing the membership fee so that directors can be paid more. And if we did rases membership next year to say 450 dollars it still would not be as much money as it was with the old 50 dollars a team format of payment.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Nov 21, 2006 15:42:55 GMT -6
This is very true. Those referees that are higher ranked look at refereeing a bit more seriously than the weekend warrior referee. Pretty much, those referees are at least a 4 or 5 should fall into that category.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Nov 22, 2006 10:59:03 GMT -6
One suggestion here folks - by and large, referees work for >people< not institutions. Hire a head referee, one with good contacts in the refereeing community, and let him be in charge of the referees (procurement, assignments, etc).
|
|
|
Post by DAMARIS on Nov 22, 2006 11:10:28 GMT -6
Does that mean that the head director also finds the other directors to work the tournement???
|
|
|
Post by DAMARIS on Nov 22, 2006 11:18:14 GMT -6
Because that is good if they find the other directors, Yet kinda scary because your not doing it yourself. but does that mean that you pay a head director a little more than you would if they were just directing?
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Nov 22, 2006 11:53:53 GMT -6
Yes, that is the way its supposed to work. A good Head Referee will assist in hiring the referees, supervise their activities, assign the bouts, work with the bout committee to progress the event along, conduct observations, provide feedback... the list goes on. If he does his job well (and, is permitted to by the organizing group!) there will be minimal circumstances when he'll actually be on the floor refereeing. Hiring a good Head Referee and a good Bout Committee Chair, and then giving them the freedom to perform their jobs well is one of the ways to ensure a first class event.
Being a good Head Referee is a very different skill set than being a top level referee working the floor. It is a managerial position, and one that ends up taking a lot of the responsibility for making the event run smoothly. And most of the people who are capable and competent to serve as a head referee simply won't unless they have substantial input into the referee cadre that is hired for the event. And yes, for that level of service and responsibility, paying them more than the standard referee working the event is appropriate. Check out the USFA standard pay scales for information.
In short - you get what you pay for.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Nov 22, 2006 23:15:40 GMT -6
I like David's idea. For the current season, we will have to let the LOCs make the determination about referees. Perhaps in the Ops Manual for next year, I can throw that in there.
David, what is the usual going rate for a Head Referee? I know there's not something set in stone, just kinda an approximation.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Nov 23, 2006 4:27:10 GMT -6
One of the things SWIFA needs to do is talk to some of the other collegiate coaches around the country. In the Midwest things worked differently. There was never a BC that I was aware of and host schools managed to find referees on their own. I think at some point it's a question of perceived legitimacy. SWIFA doesn't have it yet and needs to work developing it.
Just a thought.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Damaris on Nov 29, 2006 14:36:12 GMT -6
Because all the tournements were all run differenly last year, ------------(and you cant say who won a circuit if all tounements in the circuit were different)------ there needed to be something to control that. -----------So your saying Dan, that there exist NO central govern of the other college circuits, and yet they still persist to be organized. That is kind of against the laws of nature and humanity but..... do tell me more..........
|
|
|
Post by Damaris on Nov 29, 2006 14:40:28 GMT -6
Oh and under the current system the schools are required to find directors on there own.... Another problem last year is that schools were getting paid a whole hell of a lot to have like 2 directors or whatever the wanted and that is the whole reason why we decided we needed to put regulations on the minimum amount of directors and strips so that people wont get paid for running crap tournements.
|
|
|
Post by Damaris on Nov 29, 2006 14:46:25 GMT -6
I think at some point it's a question of perceived legitimacy. SWIFA doesn't have it yet and needs to work developing it. Just a thought. Dan What did you think we were doing.... ? Seriously... What... did you think we were doing?
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Nov 29, 2006 16:18:54 GMT -6
I think what Dan meant is that because of SWIFA's history, we don't have that great of a reputation in the fencing world. "We're just a bunch of drunken college students hitting blades around and partying." I think that if we continue our current progress, monitoring and helping run and setup the tournaments, that SWIFA's reputation will get better. Already, Bruce Capin has spoken with me about where SWIFA is and where SWIFA is going, and he's all the way in Florida!
If we just keep it up and continue working together to a common goal, SWIFA members or not, that we'll start seeing some results next season.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Nov 29, 2006 21:19:35 GMT -6
I think at some point it's a question of perceived legitimacy. SWIFA doesn't have it yet and needs to work developing it. Just a thought. Dan What did you think we were doing.... ? Seriously... What... did you think we were doing? The legitimacy of SWIFA is the entire point, Dan! That's what all this work from so many people went into. I and the SWIFA organization have ALWAYS been open to suggestions and help from every quarter. I have asked you personally what you want done differently. We WANT your input so we can make a fencing conference that works in Texas! Always feel free to tell us what you think! You know how to get hold of me. Tell me what you're thinking, and I'll put it on the next agenda. I'm NOT guaranteeing a favorable vote, and I may have a different opinion, but you will get a chance to be heard! THAT MUCH, I WILL GUARANTEE! I will not chair any organization that won't let you have your say! Kyle, SWIFA Chairman
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Nov 30, 2006 1:02:53 GMT -6
Jay got what I was saying.
There was an issue with a few referees not showing at the last SWIFA. This caused things to run less smoothly than they would have otherwise. Some discussion ensued regarding on how to fix this. I suggested it is a question of perception regarding the legitimacy of SWIFA as opposed to an issue with how we are doing things or real legitimacy.
If we continue to drive on with our current ideals I think the issue of referee no-shows will solve itself. Delegation is a nice tool to use in any job, but it isn't a cure-all. A head referee won't necessarily solve the problem if the referees hired don't think this is a worthy tournament to make. This may shock you, but money isn't the motivating factor to most referees. You don't get paid enough for that crap at any level. For referees to show up they have to feel that the SWIFAs are worthy of their presence. This is not to say they aren't, only we may have an issue with how SWIFAs are perceived. Time and a dedication to our ideals will probably solve this.
As for some other issues raised in this thread:
I never said there was no central organization to the collegiate fencing in the Midwest. We had a coaches meeting each spring to set the following year's schedule. Schools were responsible for the tournaments they hosted meeting the criteria for the conference. There were repercussions for not meeting the criteria laid out. We discussed rules for our use and whether rules were to apply to varsity and club programs alike. We discussed lots of things. I don't remember a lot of specifics though, so I suggested contacting coaches from around the country for ideas.
I did not say I'd been excluded from any conversations. I've given feedback on a few points previously and feel it was considered. I suggested in my post we might have a problem with perception. I feel this is a legitimate concern and I think we need to work on this so that it goes away. I think the best way to work on this is to put out what we are going to do and do it. To continue with what we have and not panic due to a couple hitches.
Just my 2 cents.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Damaris on Nov 30, 2006 11:56:10 GMT -6
Ok, I thought you were saying that what we were doing is having no effect, and is not going to have any effect on solving swifa's previous and or current problems.
|
|