nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jan 12, 2011 9:21:51 GMT -6
The topic of the difficulty in holding several sanctioned tournaments in a division (or not so much) kept taking over the "Katy Blades" thread on the clubs board.
Rather than get accused of inciting "thread drift" there, I thought I'd give it a whirl as a topic in its own right. Here are some observations of mine on how things seemed to work in two different divisions, both in Texas, neither the Gulf Coast Division.
IIRC, it was on this forum some years ago that someone posted to the effect that within the Plains Texas Division, very few of their tournaments were sanctioned to issue letter classification changes. Presumably this was to avoid insular "ratings inflation."
OTOH in the South Texas Division pretty much any tournament anywhere is considered sanctioned unless there is a serious reason not to. Interestingly, however, many of Alamo Fencing Academy's epee tournaments get billed on FRED as non-USFA. I am not sure why that is.
|
|
|
Post by joevisconti on Jan 12, 2011 9:51:18 GMT -6
Then, to repeat what I posted on the Katy Blades thread: In some divisions the clubs do not host tournaments. All tournaments are run by the division. The clubs exist solely to train the fencers.
This is not my personal opinion.
Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Jan 12, 2011 12:18:15 GMT -6
I've noticed that both the North Texas Division and the Gulf Coast Division have well-announced beginning of the season scheduling meetings.
Are such meetings common in the other divisions in Texas?
|
|
|
Post by JEC on Jan 14, 2011 12:48:28 GMT -6
The South Texas division typically holds its meeting at the Summer National divisional qualifier on the first of the two days (Saturday) at the end of fencing.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jan 14, 2011 23:33:52 GMT -6
The South Texas division typically holds its meeting at the Summer National divisional qualifier on the first of the two days (Saturday) at the end of fencing. Wow! You guys really hold your meeting in advance.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Jan 16, 2011 20:13:21 GMT -6
In answer to JoeVisconti, there was a time when that was normal in the GCD. I was one of the people that worked to change it. We needed more opportunities to help grow the sport. It worked well, because the GCD went from a small division to one of the larger and one of the fastest growing. There were legal issues I had to get answered, and after I turned over the chairmanship there was actually a club split to go back to the way things were.
The issue was at that time we were very small, and begging for gym space from Rice, U of H, St. Thomas, A&M, Beaumont, Port Arthur and Victoria. We had to take what we could get. We would hold competitions at A&M and there would be one in San Marcos and the days would be coordinated so people could come from Dallas and fence both. Fencing was run as a club only sport like a college dorm frat/sorority.
The fencing model for growth in the sport will require a professional dedication, like at Alliance/Salle Mauro/Woodlands/Bayou City. We need approximately 14 more clubs in this area before saturation is reached of this level if each club could host up to 200 fencers.
Logic: .5% of school age children fence during a year for two months. Katy ISD would result in 400 and there are 57 school districts in this area.
Unfortunately, to handle this we will need spaces and these spaces cost money in rent. This rent will need to come from the fencers. That means we need to keep them motivated and involved. This requires competitions to keep both the fencers and parents involved. The USFA needs to be involved in these because of the legitimacy it offers as the governing body.
In the 80's, we actually developed tournament models where the host club received rent from the tournament and the USFA would come in and run the event. That would be a good option, as long as these were not limited in number. The USFA could also charge a per head fee for sanctioning to go against the deficit. Then they would be motivated to host as many events as possible.
$5 per head times 100 fencers a weekend = $500 $500 times 24 weekends a year = $12,000 $12,000 times approximately 40 divisions (low) = $480,000 per year
Expand this were multiple clubs were doing this in each division or more weekend were being used, (Youth versus Open versus Vets versus Unclassified)
$480,000 per year times 2 (48) weekends or multiple events = $960,000 annually
What is our USFA deficit?
In response to John's email about posting lost tournaments and getting another club to pick them up. It does not happen that way for a parent. They sometimes have more than one child, and/or other events you are competing with. That slot should be taken the beginning of the year before some other school event takes its place. I have seen this happen as a parent/coach/club owner and fencer. If you don't plan the events to give them a schedule the parents/fencers will find something else to do. Then they are gone. It is better than not having a tournament, but only slightly.
In response to NEMO - Alamo may host a non-USFA tournament because then they don't have to sign up everyone for the USFA. Andrey's model may be based upon that type of fencers, and these are often youth oriented events.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jan 16, 2011 21:50:19 GMT -6
In answer to JoeVisconti, there was a time when that was normal in the GCD. I was one of the people that worked to change it. We needed more opportunities to help grow the sport. It worked well, because the GCD went from a small division to one of the larger and one of the fastest growing. There were legal issues I had to get answered, and after I turned over the chairmanship there was actually a club split to go back to the way things were. As an amateur fenicng historian, I'd be curious to hear details on that last bit, Augie. Feel free to contact me by PM or email. There's not a lot of detail on that sort of thing.
|
|
kb
Squire
Posts: 261
|
Post by kb on Jan 17, 2011 11:14:06 GMT -6
Just my humble, personal opinion about the sanctioning situation in the GCD:
I wish the Tournament Committee as an institution (not the people, that would be moi!) would just go away. Stop its existence, cease, and die. Just in case I'm not clear enough.
No one pays a d**n bit of attention to it to start with (well, almost no one).
Most of the time we are emailing after a tournament to find someone that will serve as the TC Rep, so that fencers won't be penalized for the LOCs lack of planning to have a TC Rep at the tournament. Of course there are clubs out there that DO plan way ahead (thank you and I hold you in great esteem), but there are only a few that do that.
The TC Rep thing doesn't work, so just forget it.
You want to have a tournament? Fine. Have one. A kick-ass Div 1 opposite a Div 1 NAC in Dallas. Fine, do it. Likewise a youth tournament opposite an SYC in Houston. Do it. Two clubs get together and run all three weapons, all age brackets, in one weekend.
If your club runs a tournament according to the rules of the USFA, and no one writes a written complaint to the EC within 24 hours of the last day of the tournament, its sanctioned. And the EC has 24 hours to respond to the complaint.
Let the market decide. Eventually there will be more and more cooperation between clubs because fencers and parents of youth fencers will get sick and tired of just fencing the members of their own club. Where's the fun in that? They'll start going to other tournaments. It might take a year, but it will happen.
We'll have to change the rules first.
But I'm not Queen of the World this week, so it is just an opinion, and opinions are like bottoms- everybody has one.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Jan 17, 2011 19:48:04 GMT -6
Dear KB,
if you were queen, there would be an opportunity for fencing to grow in this market. The local fencers would be better and end up having better results. You have a very good opinion, but that is just my opinion.
Augie
|
|