Jett
Maitre
On the back![ss:Default]
Posts: 112
|
Post by Jett on Feb 12, 2012 20:47:53 GMT -6
Bear in mind, you can get just gobs of people in the division to back a plan, but if so much as one of the bigger clubs chooses to follow their own star, it can fall apart. Unfortunately, I have to agree with this. And seeing as there are certain people in this division who refuse to be team players, things are not going to change. We will continue to have small meaningless local tournaments, and people will continue to complain about the lack of attendance, but no one will take a hit to make a change. This thread might as well be locked now, any further discussion would be pointless.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 12, 2012 20:53:03 GMT -6
Now, on the question from Aldo N as to what those of us in smaller, non-business clubs try to do...
I will speak first for CLFC. We hold exactly three tournaments per year (except for the odd year when we host a qualifier). The Fete de Lune is held each August. It is strictly a veterans' tournament. Beginning with Nicole's tenure as club president, we have made it a dedicated point to go out of our way for both awards and the quality of the referee cadre (and the quality of hospitality for the referees), as well as hosting an awards dinner shortly after the tournament. Generally speaking we lose a lot of money on this event. In merchandising terms, this would be what you call a "loss leader."
Each fall CLFC has historically hosted something on the order of a "D & Under" or an "E & Under." Recently this has solidified into the Dunaway Memorial, an E & Under. The referees are local with some higher-level referees along with a resonable number of developmental referees. We still try to make the awards/trophies somewhat differnt or memorable. We generally turn a small profit on this one.
In the spring we hold the Clear Lake Open, which is, obviously, an open. We have some local referees but also usually bring in some higher level referees from around the section. Usually it makes a bit of money, but not always.
Similarly, GFC has held exactly two tournaments per year, adding a third this fencing year. The Naomia Abbott Memorial is a women's tournament. It used to be a fall event, but between RYCs, SYCs, ROCs and the JO Qualifiers (plus all the holidays) that has not worked out these last few years. It is now a spring tournament. We started with purely local referees but now add the odd outside referee for variety. First place winners in the senior events win a string of pearls. Other places and events generally have other forms of jewelry included.
The Jean Laffite Classic has always been a spring offering and is strictly for Us. Generally the referees are a local mix with a reasonable number of developmental referees included in the mix. Prizes have traditionally been of the "trophy cup" variety.
This spring GFC will also hold the Buccaneer Open. This is the club's first open tournament, held fairly late in the spring (May) for the benefit of providing one more opportunity for any fencers going to summer nationals. The name comes from the fact that GFC is now based out of O'Connell High School, whose mascot is, obviously, a "Buccaneer."
In the case of each tournament with both clubs there is an emphasis on consistency and on serving a different part of the overall fencing market. If you hear about the Naomia Abbott or Fete de Lune, you should be able to have a fairly realistic expectation of what to expect. If it is something you like, you may come back.
I would add that both GFC & CLFC lately, have experimented with some, just for fun, non-USFA weeknight tournaments for the benefit of our own clubmembers (although any fencer would be welcomed).
I try to announce upcoming tournaments held by other clubs at GFC & CLFC both in person and via their respective Facebook pages.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Feb 12, 2012 21:29:52 GMT -6
Just FWIW, the tournament results that have been posted to this thread so far would seem to indicate an uptick in attendance, at least over the course of the last 2-3 years. No idea if that is significant. As for the Van Buskirk. It is not the tournament it once was. Look at 1998. www.southwestfencing.org/97-98/Results/buskirk.html
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 12, 2012 21:55:00 GMT -6
I think one of our problems is that when we talk about "fencers" we speak as though they were identical. The 6-year-old (or 40-year-old) who is taking their first fencing class is just not there with an elite level fencer fighting his/her way to an Olympic berth.
Different tournaments speak to different fencers. I personally think each club should try to hold at least one tournament with events for complete novices. (That is, have been fencing less than one year). Most of these fencers don't want letter rankings, a concept virtually meaningless to them. They just don't want to suck. They should have opportunities just for them.
Then there are those who compete... but only occasionally. These are recreational fencers, just in it for fun and the social aspects of fencing. These are beginners, competitive, but early in their fencing life. These are working adults who would like to fence more tournaments, but often work weekends. These people need the "D & Under," "E & Under," "U-Only" tournaments.
I confess I am not a big fan of the 3-weapon, gender-segregated AND mixed, Y-8 through Vet 70+ all-in-one tournament. It is too many events usually and, often, several get cancelled because they don't make. They also inspire ever-higher levels of a select group of fencers fencing every event they qualifiy for... slowing the whole day down.
I just don't believe any tournament can be all things to all people. I think tournaments should find an identity and be true to it. Even NACs limit themselves to select events.
I will also say it now. While I am a division officer, I am not a fan of the exclusive weekends concept. It was an answer to a problem, that I am not certain was a problem... and as an answer it failed. Consider you are a sabre fencer. This weekend is the exclusive weekend for Alliance. Wanna guess how much sabre there will be?
If each month had one really good open in all three weapons (or three single weapon Div-1 type tournaments), that would be enough for the better fencers (who still have NACs and good tournaments around the state).
Seriously, for the other weekends, if we must have tournaments, let there be more events for those still working their way up the ladder. Oh, and a few tournaments just for fun (even if not USFA) would not hurt.
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Feb 12, 2012 22:17:04 GMT -6
Bear in mind, you can get just gobs of people in the division to back a plan, but if so much as one of the bigger clubs chooses to follow their own star, it can fall apart. Unfortunately, I have to agree with this. I don't think I do. I have a question. What if one of the big clubs in Houston went away? What if all of them did? What if the coaches moved, or they just closed up shop? Would all fencing in Houston die out? The big problem here is not that Alliance and Woodlands and Mauro and Bayou City don't come play with us enough. If other clubs put on a good event the big clubs do come out - see for example how many Alliance kids came out to fence at the Cougar last year. One problem is that not enough of the rest of the clubs are generating fencers. I have my own little club, but it's pretty small. CLFC is pretty small, GFC is likewise, Jerry is gone, and we miss him, Augie has closed up shop (right? Or not?). We really have lost some capacity outside the big clubs in the last couple of years. Fort Bend has some kids starting, and good job to them too, but I'd love it if U of H or Rice or CLFC or GFC or someone could start cranking out some epee kids, or beginner adults, or something, that would be great. More clubs making fencers, more fencers, more fencing. Am I missing something here? Anyone want to be a coach? There are several good prospects to take coaching lessons from without leaving the Houston area. If you really want to see fencing grow, and you were a decent fencer once, but you old now, how about you teach someone to fence? If you want to teach someone to fence, take coaching lessons. I bet Al Peters would give coaching lessons. I bet Andrey would. I bet Mauro would. I bet Khariton would. You took fencing lessons, right? Now go take coaching lessons, pick someone good, call them, see what they say. I used to train math teachers for Dallas ISD. Based on that I helped write up a mentoring program for fencing coaches for the USFCA. Here's the short version: Take coaching lessons. Pay for them. Consult, ask for help, have a long term relationship with a coach you think is good, learn, coach, learn more, take notes, run classes, read, ask questions, take more lessons, etc. You don't go work for them, you pay for lessons. If it's not working after six months you say, well, thank you, I learned a lot, and you go try someone else. You will learn a lot, it's a lot more effective than one weekend somewhere with some coach you don't know, and it's here! You don't even have to get on a plane. We really do need more coaches around here. And it's not like you couldn't find a place to teach. It's not going to make you rich, but it will pay for your fencing, anyway, is my experience, and it's fun. Ok, I just wanted to put that in there. Heh. K O'N
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Feb 12, 2012 22:19:55 GMT -6
Now, on the question from Aldo N as to what those of us in smaller, non-business clubs try to do... I will speak first for CLFC. We hold exactly three tournaments per year (except for the odd year when we host a qualifier). The Fete de Lune is held each August. It is strictly a veterans' tournament. Beginning with Nicole's tenure as club president, we have made it a dedicated point to go out of our way for both awards and the quality of the referee cadre (and the quality of hospitality for the referees), as well as hosting an awards dinner shortly after the tournament. Generally speaking we lose a lot of money on this event. In merchandising terms, this would be what you call a "loss leader." Each fall CLFC has historically hosted something on the order of a "D & Under" or an "E & Under." Recently this has solidified into the Dunaway Memorial, an E & Under. The referees are local with some higher-level referees along with a resonable number of developmental referees. We still try to make the awards/trophies somewhat differnt or memorable. We generally turn a small profit on this one. In the spring we hold the Clear Lake Open, which is, obviously, an open. We have some local referees but also usually bring in some higher level referees from around the section. Usually it makes a bit of money, but not always. Similarly, GFC has held exactly two tournaments per year, adding a third this fencing year. The Naomia Abbott Memorial is a women's tournament. It used to be a fall event, but between RYCs, SYCs, ROCs and the JO Qualifiers (plus all the holidays) that has not worked out these last few years. It is now a spring tournament. We started with purely local referees but now add the odd outside referee for variety. First place winners in the senior events win a string of pearls. Other places and events generally have other forms of jewelry included. The Jean Laffite Classic has always been a spring offering and is strictly for Us. Generally the referees are a local mix with a reasonable number of developmental referees included in the mix. Prizes have traditionally been of the "trophy cup" variety. This spring GFC will also hold the Buccaneer Open. This is the club's first open tournament, held fairly late in the spring (May) for the benefit of providing one more opportunity for any fencers going to summer nationals. The name comes from the fact that GFC is now based out of O'Connell High School, whose mascot is, obviously, a "Buccaneer." In the case of each tournament with both clubs there is an emphasis on consistency and on serving a different part of the overall fencing market. If you hear about the Naomia Abbott or Fete de Lune, you should be able to have a fairly realistic expectation of what to expect. If it is something you like, you may come back. I would add that both GFC & CLFC lately, have experimented with some, just for fun, non-USFA weeknight tournaments for the benefit of our own clubmembers (although any fencer would be welcomed). I try to announce upcoming tournaments held by other clubs at GFC & CLFC both in person and via their respective Facebook pages. I have nothing to add to this except to say that I think you guys do a near-ideal job with your events. My kids look forward to them every year. K O'N
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 13, 2012 6:39:28 GMT -6
Not to go all mutual-admiration, but I hear pretty much nothing but good things about the Gobbler's Revenge from the fencers in my neighborhood.
I think this says a lot to a tournament having that name/identity thing going I was referring to earlier. Epeeistes go to that tournament because it is consistent. They know what they are getting.
The Pouj has that, which is why a disappointing year, like this one, with 26 no-shows in their big event, epee, still pulls in 58 for senior mixed epee (plus 37 for senior mixed foil and 19 for senior mixed sabre).
|
|
|
Post by joevisconti on Feb 13, 2012 10:08:09 GMT -6
If you create a tournament that fills a need in your community, odds are that it will succeed, maybe not at first, but with time and patience.
I agree that it is important to me, as a fencer, to know that the "Whatever Memorial Tournament" will, every year, be all about (fill in the blank). This is how you build cred and your "brand name."
My other suggestion may be pointless, but here it is. Have fun with your tournaments. Once the tournament becomes a make or break part of your business model unfortunate things usually follow. Also, how much fun those running a tournament are having often influences those competing.
Not to say you shouldn't take it seriously, but have fun.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Gale on Feb 13, 2012 10:15:48 GMT -6
kon is correct. The rise of NACs gave the best fencers in each division and section a better sandbox to play in. We also have ROCs and before them the SSCCs (a mixed bag, granted). For the kiddie elite there are RYCs & SYCs.
The elites are quite well-served.
Locally, tournaments should be working on beginners, developing fencers, recreational fencers and other non-elites. Identify your target market. If you are after the elites, bid on a Div 1 ROC or a NAC.
|
|
|
Post by WoodlandsFencing on Feb 13, 2012 10:34:02 GMT -6
Seems to be a mistake to just let our elite fencers go to the NACs and other events of similar ilk. As coaches (I am not) and club owners (I am), we need to push our best fencers to these local and regional events to increase the level for all of our fencers. We have a duty to bring up the ranks behind them--failure to do so seems to be short sighted for the development of less experienced fencers and for the success of the clubs where they are members. My sons learned how to fence at tournaments by attending those alongside of the likes of Trapani, Smith, Jno-Finn, Augie, Reed, etc. They figured out quickly that they had to up their game and was invaluable in their training. Also, although my sons fence at the NACs and internationally now, they also attend (unless out of town) local and regional events because it helps perfect their tournament preparation, etc. [See Van Buskirk event of this past weekend] These events also allow their coach to see them fencing in a tournament (club fencing is not always indicative of how a fencer fences in a tournament, as you all know). We shouldn't keep our best fencers back from fencing those at other clubs--this in the long run does not work.
In any event, I will continue to push these local and regional events and send as many of the members at my club to them as I possibly can. It is good for the development of fencing and fencers--as well as good for area clubs' business as we are training the next crop of fencers. Even Seth Kelsey and Soren Thompson attend epee camps where they end up winning most if not all of their bouts.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Feb 13, 2012 22:01:06 GMT -6
Something must have gotten in the drinking water.
Seriously, we had Jett propose a GCD Bay Cup. This was killed by the GCD officers, (which I think are mostly current), for whatever reasons they had. It is a great developmental tool, and a wonderful inspiration, but if you can't plan tournaments then you can't put on this wonderful type of thing. Alex Popovici bought the software, and we were ready to do the point compilations and even did it one year. Then the tournament committee that was set up when I was officer was disbanded the next year. We could not set up USFA tournaments, insurance was threatened, etc. You should look it up and there are probably remnants on this thread somewhere.
Then we had John, Martin Gale and Jett all say we needed more tournaments that were developmental. That is exactly what I have been saying!! The local club hosts a tournament that is USFA and has equipment to provide so the new fencer is not lost. We get to expand the USFA offerings to more people. Those local events that are club events will not hold the interest of the better fencers, and they will search for the larger and regional events. Soon these events get larger because each club is contributing 2 new USFA fencers each semester. Imagine adding 18 fencers to the event log twice a year. That is exactly how it was built in the 80s. The Van Buskirk's in the 80s had over 100 fencers in Men's foil and 40 - 50 in women's foil, and we actually had pictures of fencers on the front page of the Houston Chronicle Sports Section.
These local club events are not competition for events, but marketing opportunities for the USFA. Go to the event and invite all the fencers to your next event. Imagine the groundswell. Don't just leave flyers at the front and expect these new fencers to find you.
As an answer to Kevin, I am providing private lessons at my house, but will not devote time to a USFA club until I have guarantees that these policies are in place. There is no reason to bang my head on the wall. It is interesting that much of the tone of the past several days has been to help developmental fencers. That is all the GCD should be focused on. Elite fencers will develop their own schedules and training guidelines.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Feb 14, 2012 9:52:02 GMT -6
I still think local open tournaments should be held. Not every NAC is for the elite level fencers: Div II/III NACs, for example, and while young people account for many of our area's best fencers a lot of excellent fencers have "aged out" of Junior and Cadet events (and, thus, out of Cadet & Junior NACs).
NACs do offer an attractive alternative to the larger regional tournaments of the past... but only in some months.
I think between all the clubs there would/should be at least one open tournament per month. This would not restrict the number of weekend for the more entry-level tournaments.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 14, 2012 10:04:54 GMT -6
One the topic of entry-level fencers...
Over the years I've seen a lot of kids (and adults) take up fencing at clubs. Some take to tournaments. Some do not. Others take some time to decide. One thing that bumps some out of the "maybe" column and in to the "I don't think so" column is the cost of USFA membership.
At CLFC we take one promising male and female fencer each season who would likely take to competitions but are held back by the expense of it all (club membership, USFA membership, tournament fees and equipment). In CLFC's case, we cover their club & USFA costs and cover four tournaments each that fencing year.
You only get this "scholarship" once. The next year two other fencers are chosen.
Also, while I personally find them a bit of a trial, I have grown increasingly positive about the effects of the odd "novice" tournament. These are for people who have been fencing less than oe year. We generally slide the USFA membership (rather like SWIFA or NCAAs) and requirements for two working weapons and cords on strip (although we often have to "spares" at each strip just in case). I know of some fencewrs that try 2-3 of these in their first year, knowing everyone they face is roughly as green as them.
At GFC we have held "mock tournaments" marking the end of a given extended class session. They get used to round-robin pools and direct elimination.
By the time they pass the one year mark many are already hooked and have their own gear. The results are not spectacular, but encouraging.
I would just add that I do not consider it my job to induce every fencer in either of my clubs to compete in tournaments. Some folks just want to enjoy the status of recreational fencer. It is their choice and right.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Feb 14, 2012 10:17:03 GMT -6
It's not so bad with epee for obvious reasons, but one thing I have heard for years among foil fencers (people who live or die by a referee's right of way call) is the state of foil refereeing. I'd guess what we have for the most part is decent enough for DIv III, maybe Div II events.
Too often, however, at major local tournaments, "opens", that reach the level of B2 or better, the referees even into the semifinals are foil 9s or 8s.
This is one reason better foil fencers don't swamp local tournaments. At least at a NAC the referees' skill sets have a better chance of matching the fencers'.
While I have no direct knowledge, I just know the situation is probably similar for saber fencers.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Gale on Feb 14, 2012 10:25:37 GMT -6
FIT has a series of tournaments called Rising Stars. Specifically, they are called, "Rising Stars Beginner Youth and Parent Training" tournaments. They do a pretty good job of acquainting younger fencers and their parents with the mysteries of the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Feb 14, 2012 10:32:51 GMT -6
Alamo Fencing in San Antonio has, for years, held fairly regular non-USFA training tournaments for their kids. Actually, I don't think it is restricted to their fencers, but they usually set an attendance cap... 25? I dunno, but something like that.
It seems to have served them well. They generally make a respectable showing at youth events.
Just offered for consideration.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Feb 14, 2012 16:51:03 GMT -6
We began this thread on why tournament attendance is stinky. Now we suddenly are talking about how we are doing so well individually to support the sport. These are contradictions.
I will state the obvious again, but here it is.
ALL TOURNAMENTS ON THE LOCAL LEVEL ARE DEVELOPMENTAL, UNLESS THEY ARE ROCs, NACs, RYCs, SYCs or Qualifiers.
RATINGS ARE DEVELOPMENTAL. ONCE YOU EARN NATIONAL POINTS AND GET ON THE NATIONAL POINT STANDINGS, YOU WILL REALIZE THIS.
Local events are basically developmental tournaments where we can have fun, and a newbie can fence an Olympian every so often and everyone can benefit. We have fun and compete, and learn and then maybe drink a beer afterward.
This very concept has been a nasty string on this post several years ago about "real" tournaments, and I know that I will go into tournaments limiting my moves so I can see the reactions and how I will have to fence if I was a student without my background. Coaches actually do this at NACs and JOs and make their fencers do a particular move in pools to see if they are ready to do it in DEs. These local events and ratings do not matter except for initial seedings. National events the top fencers are judged by points anyway, and then by ratings.
We started this string on why the turnouts are so low, and now we are saying everything is fine? Begin to treat this as the broken business model it is and do some real analysis. If everything was fine, this thread would be dead. For whatever reason there were a lot of lookers and posts here.
|
|
|
Post by seguin on Feb 14, 2012 22:33:38 GMT -6
Since the problem discussed is tournament attendance, I don't think discussing things that other clubs have tried and seem to be beneficial negates the problem. We are discussing different tactics a variety of people and club have employed to stem this.
I don't want to sound like nemo, but dude, you're a real downer.
Oh, and I fence in Austin, mostly. I really don't care about your internal politics in Houston.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Feb 25, 2012 13:15:42 GMT -6
Since the problem discussed is tournament attendance, I don't think discussing things that other clubs have tried and seem to be beneficial negates the problem. We are discussing different tactics a variety of people and club have employed to stem this. I don't want to sound like nemo, but dude, you're a real downer. Oh, and I fence in Austin, mostly. I really don't care about your internal politics in Houston. I wish this was a issue about internal politics, but it is not. How many times has fencing been on TV in markets like Houston, Austin, Dallas, Ft. Worth, College Station, Corpus Christi and San Antonio? I have personally represented fencing on TV in all these markets. How many times has fencing taken over the front page of the sports page or front page of the local newspaper or national paper (USA today)? I have orchestrated that multiple times, (only once nationally). My resume in fencing marketing rivals anyone on this or any national site. We had people scalping fencing event tickets in the US Olympic Festival in 1986, and utilized a model that has not been replicated except in LA later because Jack Kelly and I worked together to make certain that success is replicated. What does fencing have? 1. Events that are self-sufficient that can be broadcast with small changes in event. (Not changes in rules, but how we run the event in a more organized manner. Football, baseball, basketball and other sports with more power change to meet TV.) 2. An exciting sport that is not promoted or organized in a top-to-bottom manner to grow the sport. Any headway is only accomplished by individuals, and this headway can die out if the local organizers try to kill it. This happens across the country, not just in our section. It will continue to happen unless top-to-bottom the USFA develops a mission statement that encourages grass-roots fencing similar to the PGA. It is the grass-roots fencing that find the Olympians, not the other way around. Solution: Develop a mission statement like this, and make certain every national and local policy fulfills this statement: "The USFA is set up to introduce and develop fencing of all levels, youth, high school, collegiate and adult and the public awareness of fencing on the local and national basis. The USFA is committed to developing programs to increase coaching, club participation and individual participation in the sport of fencing in the United States." That mission statement took 45 seconds to type and create. It definitely could be edited, but if the USFA would make every policy from the top down comply with this mission statement, most of the discussion on this board would have been positive and not negative. Fencing would be growing in the U.S. ESPN and every local cable station is looking for events to put on the air, and even in 1990 I had it set up to put all Circuit Events and the Nationals on TV, with a company selling tickets and donating the proceeds to their charity. How would fencing grow if a local company spent $100,000 per week advertising fencing and selling tickets to an event, while tying into their product how great they are. The USFA chairman at that time, and later whey Stacy Johnson ran it, was more interested in the short term than the long term and never took this offer seriously. Think of where fencing could be if it were as popular as the Xgames? Maybe I do sound like a "downer". I see the real possibilities of unselfish behavior and now that I don't have any consequences for speaking freely I can speak the truth. It is selfish choices locally across the country, (and I am aware of NJ, LA, NV, IL and others as well as Texas), that are limiting fencing. The USFA will ALWAYS have this behavior. The mission statement above must be implemented and all policies formulated to agree with this statement to prevent local policies from stopping successful fencing growth.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 25, 2012 19:54:59 GMT -6
Now it's my turn to probably be "the downer."
I do not see such fundamental changes being made by the USFA as a national organization. The USFA's goal is to win medals at the international level.
I think the changes in approach you allude to (in how we approach the media and audiences), which I agree with, will almost have to come from the grass roots level, individuals, individual clubs. There is much more imagination there, anyway.
Also, just FWIW, if we could get a local event on TV, not just highlights, you'd be my choice to give the color commentary.
|
|
kon
Moniteur
Posts: 65
|
Post by kon on Feb 25, 2012 21:04:35 GMT -6
There was a thread on Fnet in the last year about the USFA's mission statement. One thought was the concept of needing more or less two national organizations, one for elite fencing and one for grassroots development. Ok, but the grassroots fencers and the mid level fencers and the near-elite fencers all want to fence the elite guys and girls, at least once in a while. And what about a top ten or top twenty Cadet? What about a top ten Junior? Are they elite, or developmental? So maybe two organizations isn't a good idea, ok. But what about someone in the USFA office who goes to USFA board meetings and has a vote and a place at the table whose only job it is to stick up for the non-elite developmental fencers, the "99%", to use a common meme from the headlines? I think this is a good idea. Right now I guess grassroots fencing doesn't seem very important to the USFA, so support for it from the USFA is sporadic at best. Support is not non-existent, Div II and Div III NACs, for example, are explicitly for sub-elite level fencers. But other policies are damaging, and then some stuff like developing high school fencing is just ignored. We can say, well, we'll develop fencing locally! Yeah, ok. But the national office sets lots of policies in place that can either help or hinder us. It would really be nice to have someone at the USFA table with a vote to say, hey, no, you can't do that, that's bad for local fencing development. I think that would help a lot. This is the current board: usfencing.org/resources/board-of-directors-officials-committee-task-force-infoIt might be nice to get a coherent letter together asking the USFA to do some reasonable number of reasonable things and send it to one of them; Jeff Salmon, for example, is the Club Rep. He's a smart guy, I met him once, he might be the closest thing we have to a grassroots rep. So can we express coherently what we want the USFA to do for the Southwest Section, say, in a short and legible form? Jeez, there's a challenge. I mean, we can't build Rome in a day, but if you could ask the USFA to do three revenue neutral things for us at their next meeting, what would those three things be? I know one that I'd ask for, but I'll see if anyone else comes up with it before I blurt it out. K O'N
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Mar 5, 2012 19:09:30 GMT -6
I will answer Kevin's question for three things that would help fencing grow first.
1. Have the USFA sanction any USFA club hosting a tournament for ratings from the national office.
To answer John, all good ideas in approaching the media come locally, but when policy of the decision-makers puts an end to it then we have issues with growth.
We have had fencing set up on Television, (NAC in Houston), and it was nixed by the USFA national office. We have had multiple marketing groups such as the HSA want to put fencing on television with multiple events, but they can't put their support behind a sport when the sanctioning of the tournaments were questionable.
No one wants to waste their time investing in a sport that two years later the entire model may be made mute because of a lack of guarantees that they will be able to continue. I love the sport but have finally decided it is not worth doing this again. How do you convince a smart business-person that has not emotional ties? You don't. I have had these discussions and we have had this set up: television, sponsorship, political support, etc. The risk is too great for the effort. The risk is not that it will fail, the risk is that the policies will not be in place two years later to reap the benefits of the effort.
That is why we see things flame up and then disappear. It will continue to happen with the environment we are in.
|
|
|
Post by joevisconti on Mar 6, 2012 10:03:34 GMT -6
To answer John, all good ideas in approaching the media come locally, but when policy of the decision-makers puts an end to it then we have issues with growth. We have had fencing set up on Television, (NAC in Houston), and it was nixed by the USFA national office. We have had multiple marketing groups such as the HSA want to put fencing on television with multiple events, but they can't put their support behind a sport when the sanctioning of the tournaments were questionable. A NAC is a nationally run event and so the national office can say yay or nay. Anyone know what reason was given at the time? Something logistical? If you somehow got a local tournament on local television I doubt the national office would say much until after it was a fait accompli.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Mar 7, 2012 9:40:04 GMT -6
This is a reply to joevisconti's post and does represent a small bit of threadrift.
I don't see fencing cracking into a major TV market (say, Houston) just anytime soon. Likely there is a better chance of a national cable channel picking it up, such as the many ESPN channels on my satellite system.
Some colleges, however, do have their own campus channels. If the same college has a fencing club and hosts a tournament on campus, that might spur recruitment from within the student body.
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Mar 11, 2012 6:46:41 GMT -6
To answer John, all good ideas in approaching the media come locally, but when policy of the decision-makers puts an end to it then we have issues with growth. We have had fencing set up on Television, (NAC in Houston), and it was nixed by the USFA national office. We have had multiple marketing groups such as the HSA want to put fencing on television with multiple events, but they can't put their support behind a sport when the sanctioning of the tournaments were questionable. A NAC is a nationally run event and so the national office can say yay or nay. Anyone know what reason was given at the time? Something logistical? If you somehow got a local tournament on local television I doubt the national office would say much until after it was a fait accompli. The answer to the first question is that the National Office "did not want to set any standards for NACs or provide anything that other NACs coud not reproduce". They told the HSA that they did not want to set expectations to high for the future. It was set up for local airtime at the same time via the Houston Cups's, but the HSA realized that fencing could not guarantee on ongoing event each year and decided not to put the two or three year effort in at that time. This was a prior discussion on this board on sanctioning tournaments about 5 years ago. The people that set this up do not want a one time event if it is successful, and they don't want to do it if it is not. Either fencing will have to change its thinking or stay in the dark ages.
|
|