|
Post by schlager7 on Aug 13, 2003 22:42:28 GMT -6
The Southwest Section recently invoked article IV.a. of their Operations Manual. It reads:
"Each Division will attempt to avoiding scheduling another tournament on top of another DivisionĀ¹s SSCC Event. This includes all Open, Youth and Veterans Tournaments. Any club that schedules a tournament on top of a SSCC Event will not be eligible to host an SSCC Competition until approved by a majority of the Section EC. All Section EC members belonging to the same Division as the club in question shall excuse themselves from voting."
This resulted in a sanction against Salle Mauro and refusing to allow any clubs in the Gulf Coast Division that had held tournaments on the same date as an SSCC tournament from hosting one. My question is, "Which clubs have held tournaments that conflict with SSCC tournaments in recent years? Who is clear to host and event and who is suspended from playing host.
The Katy Blades and the Trade of Blade have hosted NO tournaments, so they are in the clear. I don't think Spindletop Cavaliers, the Galveston Fencing Club, or the Coastal Bend Fencing Society have done enough tournaments to have scheduled on top of the SSCC.
Who else?
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Aug 13, 2003 22:43:48 GMT -6
Original reply from Jason Ray
Since Texas A&M has been allowed to host the section event the past 3 years, it is safe to assume that it is still eligible to host it this year. The section brought up this article two years ago when the University of Texas scheduled a tournament on top of the Heavy Metal, which was the section event at the time. There was a meeting about it at the Rose Condon event, and this is where the article was invoked. A&M was eligible to host the next year, and since it has not hosted on top of another circuit even since then, presumably is still eligible.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Aug 13, 2003 22:44:44 GMT -6
Original reply from "Anon."
Just to make sure I'm following this correctly...three clubs A&M, Mauro and Bayou entered bids for the SSCC. Mauro and Bayou were out of the runnings, so it was decided that August's club would host it? WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO A&M's BID??!! Last year, their tournament was one of the mostly highly rated and acclaimed tournaments in the section. They have a central location and their facility is unbeatable. Not to mention, of course, that they are on good terms with nearly all the clubs in the section, which considering the politics involved currently, is respectable.
Why should the SSCC be the "guinea pig" tournament for Katy Blades? Being that they've NEVER hosted a tournament, it would be nearly impossible for them to run a tournament to the same caliber as the SSCC has traditionally been run. Why would our division risk the reputation of the SSCC on a club which has never run a tournament? *cough, cough* politics *cough, cough*
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Aug 13, 2003 22:45:37 GMT -6
Reply originally made by Robyn Schuster
There is much to say regarding my disappointment in the division officers to adequately represent the clubs in the division in regards to the SSCC event. Texas A&M University Fencing Club did not revoke it's bid for the Southwest Sectional Circuit Cup, yet is wondering why it was not considered as a host but Katy Blades was--especially since Katy Blades had not submitted a bid request in a timely manner. I know I speak for other clubs as well when I say that there is a serious lack of communication with regards to the division.
The Texas A&M University Fencing Club has attempted to contact several members of the division and section regarding the SSCC conflict since June, however, nearly all the officers have been unable to come to their phones for several months in order to contact us back. I realize they are quite busy and would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I feel that someone in there, besides John and on the occassion August, should have been able to return our countless phone calls and messages.
Perhaps another club than Texas A&M would like to run the SSCC and in that, while I would be sad to see it go, other clubs with the EXPERIENCE should be given the opportunity to run a tournament as high "caliber" (as Anon put it) as the SSCC. I would expect a much more informative officers group than what was demonstrated...in addition a decision that displayed thorough planning and equal consideration and a more timely decision than what was brought forth.
As it is, our hands are tied when it comes to the division. As we, like many other clubs we have spoken with since the decision, feel at the mercy of a monopolistic officer corps.
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Aug 14, 2003 10:55:28 GMT -6
Dear fellow fencers:
This reply could be to several postings. It has been stated that the Gulf Coast Division did not adequately represent the division to the SSC. When I began communicating to the Section about the Circuit in late May, it was communicated to me that they were not comfortable hosting the circuit at ATM for the third year in a row but it was the division's decision. The reasons for this were the operational problems that had been experienced in the events there, such as delayed starting times and the building not being open when the event is scheduled to start. This view was already expressed at the Longhorn SSC last year in the Sectional Meeting.
When potential locations were suggested to the Section, I was notified that the Section wanted the tournament in Houston but that there was a ruling that any club that had conflicts with scheduling was not eligible for that year. Of the three clubs mentioned in the response from the section, the Katy Blades is the only club that did not fall within those parameters. The Section could have just selected a club, but did not feel comfortable selecting a club but did not want it at ATM, Salle Mauro, Bayou City Blades, or Rice University.
In response to the Katy Blades running a tournament, it is true that the club the Katy Blades has never run a tournament. It is also true that in the Gulf Coast Division, no one has run more successful tournaments than myself. I began running tournaments in 1981, and ran the first successful fencing event in the Olympic Festival in Houston that got the USFA raves from the USOC chairman in the USA today. The Houston event will start on time, will have adequate strips and equipment and should be fun. We have several locations selected, and we would like to utilize a new location that will add interest to the event. If it is not run adequately, then you can speak to me about it. I did not ask to be running this event, but I have now embraced it. A couple of other tournaments I helped found and run are: The Van Buskirks 1984-1992 The first Heavy Metals (I won several of them, and ran them). The first DeGaul tournaments. Gulf Coast Divisional Qualifiers 1981-1992. I actually began the ability for Texas ATM to host USFA tournaments and ran tournaments at ATM under both AFLA and USFA names. Texas Collegiate Fencing Championships.
If you are not going to attend the Circuit because you think it will not be adequately ran, please reconsider and ask people who know me, such as Oscar B., John M., Jerry B., John C., Marrietta and Bill T., Al P., Salim, Vinnie B., Gary M., etc. If you don't know those names, please contact me and I will explain who they are to you.
As a division, this reminds me of back in 1980 and 1981 when Michelle Sebastiani was in town. He had great fencers and no one really appreciated what they had until he went to Princeton. I was an Aggie, and never got to fully appreciate what he did. We have more coaches, better instruction and more opportunities than we ever did. It will be up to us to use it.
|
|
|
Post by Sick of the Aggies on Aug 15, 2003 15:37:18 GMT -6
I think the Aggies have had there shots at running a descent SSCC and they have screwed it up everytime. Either they can't get enough qualified people from amoung their ranks to run it or they just won't accept help from people who know how to run a tournament. As far as having a wonderful venue, sure it is nice if you don't mind sharing the space with basketball players or having to truck your kit up stairs to a secondary gym with a bad floor. Then all that crap at sectionals with them not having the cajonas to get the gym opened at a descent time and kept open for the meeting - or at least planning for an alternate site for the meeting. They have the poorest equipment in the division, no help, and the people that are there are arrogant and act like somebody owes them something! As I understand it, the section leadership actually has no say in where a SSCC will be held (as long as it has not sanctioned the organizing club), that is completely up to the division officers. And with the war that is going on between Mauro and Bayou City, that only leaves a few other clubs that are A. willing, B. capable and C. neutral enough, to run a tournament of this "caliber" (haha). I think August will do a great job of running this tournament. He has the experience (he is not some arrogant college kid who has only been running tournaments for two or three years) He is well connected in the division and the section and he knows how to ask for help and how to say thank you. By the way, I am not an officer in either this or any other division or section. Just someone who has watched all this from a distance and grown sick of it. I am not going to post a name on this because I don't relish the idea of receiving a bunch of flame mail from the arrogant leadership of Texas A&M.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Aug 15, 2003 22:09:36 GMT -6
I guess I'm part of that arrogent leadership, so lacking an individual to reply to, I'll post to the board.
Sick of the Aggies should maybe be aware that the individuals who were to run the section circuit last fall and the section qualifiers last spring weren't Aggies. The section told A&M who would run both those tournaments. When the Aggies ran the spring 2002 Heavy Metal, it went off pretty smoothly.
As for the scheduling problems with sectionals, the section set those dates and we're lucky the venue was open at all seeing that A&M wasn't in session and had a dearth of student workers at the time.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Aug 15, 2003 22:10:30 GMT -6
Hey Sick of Aggies, settle a bet with my wife, what division are you from?
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Sick of Aggies on Aug 16, 2003 0:02:20 GMT -6
Dan, You are not part of the current arrogant leadership ...you have moved on, if fact I don't even include you in that pompus group. 2001 was the one that was scheduled on top of by UT, small turnout (25mf, 40me, 17 ms), upstairs, bad floor. I realize this was on your watch. Personally I thought UT should have been sanctioned, but since the pres of the A&M club was dating a UT club officer it didn't happen. The host club (A&M) was responsible for running the 2002 SSCC tournament - they refused the help, started events late, and had no control over when the venue opened and closed. I don't think they were prepared for a much larger turnout than they had had the two previous years, poor organizing again. If A&M knew that there were going to be venue problems and volunteer problems for the 2003 sectionals, they should have either made other arrangements and solicited help from other clubs or passed the chore to another club in the GC division or to the next division. But instead, being as unqualified and arrogant as they were, they chose to let the sectional championships be held at whatever time the rec folks said it would be held, and did not even think about where the meeting would be held. I guess they didn't get the planning document from the section! Strike Three. I really don't want to continue to revisit all of this stuff, but when you have folks who are blind to what is going on and think that everything is just peachy with the way the tournaments have been organized and who are so arrogant as to refuse to let people volunteer to straighten out their mess, a reminder of the past is necessary. I personally think that the hosting of the SSCC in any division should be rotated amoung the club who are willing and capable to host it. After all, that is what the main purpose of the SSCC - promote and build tournaments in the divisions. As far as what division I am from, it doesn't matter - tell Liz to keep her money.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Aug 16, 2003 21:38:31 GMT -6
First off, A&M by no means gets a free pass, but...
The host club (A&M) wasn't responsible for running the Fall 2002 Heavy Metal -- A&M was told who would run it and that individual's computer continually crashed causing all the entries to need to be re-entered on a different computer to run the tournament. We still used lots of volunteers from other clubs. When we (A&M) ran the spring 2002 Heavy Metal, we used volunteers from other clubs, the events started on time, and I heard nothing but positive comments on the running of the tournament.
A&M was a safety valve venue for Sectionals last spring. The Aggies were told the only thing they needed to do was supply a couple strips, volunteers (both done), and food for the refs (botched). The reason Sections ran late was there weren't enough refs, which A&M wasn't supposed to have gotten. Had we had enough refs to work all the strips, sectionals would have ended when projected and the meeting would have been in the venue. Thus the entire issue of the hours of the rec would have been moot.
If the upstairs venue bothered you so much, why didn't you use the elevator? As for the floor, it is admittedly no great shakes, but no worse than many of the floors used for tournaments in the section.
In the end there are many things that need to be improved at the SSCC tournaments -- the quality and quantity of referees, adherence to the scheduled times, etc. These things need to be worked on at all the tournaments -- I think the Oz Parsons was the only tournament which hit its times last year (and the year before -- Oklahoma runs good tournaments). College clubs will always have some of the problems you raised with their tournaments due to their turnover in officers, but they do tend to have the best facilities and call me nutty, but I like to be able to take a shower after I've fenced.
Lastly, a lot of that arrogance from college kids is a defense mechanism to people who come up and say, "Wow you're screwed up, let me save you."
Dan
|
|
|
Post by SOA on Aug 17, 2003 0:50:31 GMT -6
Whatever. Why are you fighting the battle for this group? Do they need their coach to write good things about them to counteract all those baaaad people offering to help, that have ruined their self-estem and caused them to turn to the dark side of arrogant childish behavior? Seriously, do you not agree that the SSCC should rotate with in the division? Or are you of the mind set that once you have it, it is mine, mine, mine, all mine! (like JR)? How do you figure A&M was a safety valve for sectionals? It was GC Div turn to hold sectionals. If the division was organized from the top down, instead of having a dicator in charge and everyone else waiting on him to do....nothing, maybe they could have some cooperation between clubs within their own division (instead of relying on the other weak link UT). The arrogant aggies opened their mouths and said "we can do it! yuk yuk" and there was a collective groan in the rest of the section. As far as being told who was going to run the tournament, I can't fathom anyone telling an aggie anything that he didn't want to do and him doing it. If I remember correctly, was it not Paul's computer that crashed? Wasn't he running fencing time (the most simple and unreliable program out there)? That just gave the arrogant aggies someone to point their fingers at and not take responsibity for anything...once again. I agree that there are a lot of things that need to be improved section wide. Quality referees, timely operations, adherence to ALL USFA rules (not just the ones we decide to follow at this tournament ), better organizational standards...etc. But can't we get the log out of our own eye first? I dont care if you reply to this post or not. (I guess you will have to since I asked you serveral questions) But it would be nice to hear what some others have to say. There have been 40+ readers of this thread since I posted and you are the only one with cajonas enough to respond. I salute you sir! Hi to Liz.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Aug 17, 2003 12:30:44 GMT -6
SOA wrote "Seriously, do you not agree that the SSCC should rotate with in the division? Or are you of the mind set that once you have it, it is mine, mine, mine, all mine! (like JR)?"
Who is JR? Please tell me this is not a "Dallas" reference.
|
|
|
Post by SOA on Aug 17, 2003 13:27:53 GMT -6
Original reply from Jason RaySince Texas A&M has been allowed to host the section event the past 3 years, it is safe to assume that it is still eligible to host it this year. The section brought up this article two years ago when the University of Texas scheduled a tournament on top of the Heavy Metal, which was the section event at the time. There was a meeting about it at the Rose Condon event, and this is where the article was invoked. A&M was eligible to host the next year, and since it has not hosted on top of another circuit even since then, presumably is still eligible. This is JR.
|
|
|
Post by Forgiver of Aggies on Aug 17, 2003 13:35:50 GMT -6
I have decided to forgive the aggies for being so ignorant and arrogant. I know that they will not change but I forgive them any way. I have harbored this in my heart for too long. I will now no longer dwel on this subject. I think that August will do a fine job of hosting the SSCC this season and I believe he will promote the rotation of this tournament within the GC Div. Best Wishes to all, formerly SOA
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Aug 17, 2003 19:14:15 GMT -6
I think this thread has wandered quite far afield from: 1.) my original query and, 2.) anything resembling constructive criticism.
I am a firm believer in a certain amount of spleen-venting, but after a point we should try to suggest something useful or we are wasting space.
I am open to being looser than some boards, but this is NOT FencingSucks.com
|
|
|
Post by FOA on Aug 17, 2003 22:30:02 GMT -6
Boy, I thought you could take a complement better than that. It looks like you have a lot of readers with very few writers. You are probably right, this thread is useless. No one seems to want to respond, even with the large amount of goading I have done. Thanks again August for your support of the division and stepping up to the plate with the SSCC.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Aug 18, 2003 10:19:21 GMT -6
Don't think I don't appreciate the response and the contributions to the forum. I just don't want these things to degenerate into idle name-calling. As long as there is a legitimate grievance to be aired or constructive criticism to be offered, I'll let these run.
You will note I uttered words of caution. I did not simply "lock-down" the thread, as some places would.
|
|
|
Post by captain jon on Aug 18, 2003 22:46:43 GMT -6
why dont we make augie the king of this section and let him get rid of all the political crap from sm...i just want to fence nice tournaments without having to drive 3 hours. we have all these dedicated fencers from so many clubs that i cant believe we only get 2 or 3 meets per year. why dont we have our own "gulf coast" circuit with every club hosting an event....that would let us know right away which clubs can put on an event and which clubs still have a ways to go. the expierience gained would be invaluable to all of us and maybe (ok maybe) we could learn to help each other.
|
|
|
Post by The Commish on Aug 19, 2003 3:12:29 GMT -6
Well, I've been watching this discussion for a bit of time now, and wondering weather or not to jump in, but I think its time to, for no other purpose than clearing up a few mistatements.
Regarding the Heavy Metal 2002. The (at the time) experimental Sectional-website based pre-registration system crashed 3 days before the event, destroying all records of pre-registrations. Three programs were attempted, running on three different computers. Two of them crashed, running Xseed (when it tried to import the database) and Point Control. A third computer, from the South Texas Division, running FencingTime, came in and saved the day.
Three referees cancelled the week before the tournament, leaving a large gap in the staff.
Equipment that was supposed to show up from other Divisions did not show up - leaving the tournament short of strips and only able to run 9 strips instead of the projected 12.
Dispite all the problems, the event eventually smoothed itself out, and managed to finish at a reasonable hour both days.
Regarding this year's designations.
The Section officership, different than the SSCC please note, felt that since TAMU had been designated for the past 3 years, it might be good for another club to have a shot at it, if another was willing. August Skopik indicated to the SSCC and the Section that BCFA had a first class facility, and was interested in hosting the event.
At that point, various other groups within the Division started what amounted to a rather ugly bit of back and forth. Certain clubs were put forth as hosts, and the SECTION indicated that it would enforce the Ops Manual with regard to hosting events on top of another SSCC event in previous seasons. After much more discussion, Katy Blades, with August Skopik as head, was put forth as an alternative.
The SSCC believes that August Skopik is eminently capable of putting on a first class SSCC event in Houston and will support his efforts with the resources it has at its disposal (which, admittedly are pretty slim - and thats the way the various Division's like the SSCC, close to powerless).
In closing, I wish to say that I hope the Gulf Coast can resolve its differences peacefully, and ALL the warring factions can come to gether. I believe that both sides in the main dispute are equally at fault, and the rest of the Division is getting caught in their war.
But then again, Gulf Coast isn't the only Division with coaches who act like spoiled 10 year-olds at times.
|
|
|
Post by FOA on Aug 19, 2003 16:55:24 GMT -6
... why dont we have our own "gulf coast" circuit with every club hosting an event....that would let us know right away which clubs can put on an event and which clubs still have a ways to go. the expierience gained would be invaluable to all of us and maybe (ok maybe) we could learn to help each other. Bravo! Capt'n Jon. A division circuit would be wonderful. Now who is going to tell Mauro that he has to play nice, and get BCFA to be at the same tournament? These two need to 1. get over whatever is eating at them and 2. learn to get along like that are Americans (even if they are not). But, I forgive them for their childish behavior and the political ranglings that have draged the GC division down.
|
|
|
Post by FOA on Aug 19, 2003 17:19:00 GMT -6
Well I guess this couldn't have gone on with out "the Commish" puting in his two cents (since he is a former aggie). Regarding the 2002 Heavy Metal, if the section had not been running some cooked up crap on a Mac, and had run the database on a PC, then it probably wouldn't have crashed in the first place. A whole three referees canceled, does this tell you that there was not enough to begin with or what? Isn't the host club suppose to make sure that they have enough equipment to put on a tournament? The Section officership? When did they start making decisions for the Division? Sounds like you are trying to distance yourself from any un-offical sanctioning of the Aggies. You are right about the SSCC not having much resoursces, in fact you don't really have any since you would not and did not back the sanctioning of UT two seasons ago. When you don't have the cajonas to stand up for what was put down on paper, your position becomes weak and you get the situation that you are now having to endure - infighting within a division about who will hold a SSCC tournament. And this is not the only division that you are having this problem in (NT). If you are going to call yourself "The Commish", then act like it and bring some order to this cluster-you-know-what. But, I do forgive you, since you are an aggie alum, for being the way that you are. Maybe you will be able to take heed and get a grip on what is taking place. Stop protecting those who are screwing up.
|
|
|
Post by M E on Aug 19, 2003 20:16:28 GMT -6
. Regarding the Heavy Metal 2002. The (at the time) experimental Sectional-website based pre-registration system crashed 3 days before the event, destroying all records of pre-registrations. Three programs were attempted, running on three different computers. Two of them crashed, running Xseed (when it tried to import the database) and Point Control. A third computer, from the South Texas Division, running FencingTime, came in and saved the day. Even with the computers crashing and loosing all preregistration info, you still found it convenient to charge everyone the extra money for signing up at the event.
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Aug 19, 2003 21:21:43 GMT -6
"A Gulf Coast Division Circuit" ;D We have been kicking around that idea as officers. I am making this suggestion. U of H is having a tournament Sept. 6 and 7, Salle Mauro is having two Sept. 28 and Jan. 24. They can pick one of the two. Now we need each of the clubs to host a local Open and name it for the circuit. I have posted a schedule, so pick dates not on the schedule. The first club that emails me at katyblades@sbcglobal.net gets the first dibs on the dates. I have several suggestions. I will keep the point totals, email me the results and points are the in reverse in order of place and number of fencers. 23 fencers, 23 points for first, 22 for second, etc. I am not prepared to do a youth Gulf Coast division circuit, because of the RYCs, but it could be in the cards for next year. We will drop one of the circuit's points from the year. I have several groundrules. The tournament must be an Open. If you host a tournament, you must attend the other club's events. I understand conflicts with individual schedules, but a mass conflict by a club is not understandable. I think that a ban on that club hosting a Gulf Coast Circuit until they have attended that club's event is in order. I think if we make an effort to run this and attend, then we can see exactly where things stand in the division. All I need are dates and tournaments. Remember, the first club that gets it to me gets first choice.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Aug 19, 2003 21:35:52 GMT -6
<stuff snipped> The Section officership, different than the SSCC please note, felt that since TAMU had been designated for the past 3 years, it might be good for another club to have a shot at it, if another was willing. August Skopik indicated to the SSCC and the Section that BCFA had a first class facility, and was interested in hosting the event. At that point, various other groups within the Division started what amounted to a rather ugly bit of back and forth. Certain clubs were put forth as hosts, and the SECTION indicated that it would enforce the Ops Manual with regard to hosting events on top of another SSCC event in previous seasons. <more stuff snipped> Does anyone really read the SSCC Operations Manual? It states: The Chair or Secretary of each Division is responsible for communicating to the Commissioner and the Section Chair the Name, Date, Venue, and Contact Person of the Competition on or before August 1st of the current fencing season.It also says: II.C) When a Division Designates an LOC to host an SSCC Competition, it indicates its acceptance of all of the policies and directives of this document and that it will abide by them.So why did the Section Officership get involved in the Division business in the first place? Or do we just pick and chose what we want to use out of the manual? Cat - as in "curiosity killed the..."
|
|
|
Post by M E on Aug 20, 2003 7:34:22 GMT -6
Does anyone really read the SSCC Operations Manual? It states: Cat - as in "curiosity killed the..." Okay, I accepted your challenge and looked up the Opertations Manual. What a garbled mess. I read it as "you will do it our way but when something goes wrong it is your fault". I have been out of fencing for four years. Can someone fill me in and tell me how we arrived at this mess?
|
|