Monday, August 17, 2009

A Conversation Continues.

cobalt said...

"If it wasn't an automated system on a very simple to use web site, I could understand. But to paraphrase Matt Cox on a different question I asked, "I call BS." If you're a tournament organizer, then you should understand nowadays how important it is to have that data up on askFred anyways. It's a big deal in regards to promotion of your tournament, and helps the sport as a whole. Honestly, I can't think of anyone who took more than 2 days to get that stuff online last year(Well, I can think of one... )

And with the automation on, it's pretty simple stuff for the observer. And Matt's a pretty active webmaster. When there's a problem he's pretty much immediately on it.

All in all, I have good vibes about this new system. I tried poking holes into it as best I could. It's pretty solid. Obviously, with people trying to cheat it, holes will be found. But, all in all, it's a massive improvement in organization from last year."

August 17, 2009 2:06 PM

The Gray Epee says:

I do not disagree with what you are saying. Though there is more than one club that is not prompt to post on Ask Fred.

What I do believe is that if a tournament was to loose it's sanction( after just two days)it would not harm the tournament organizers as much as it would the kids fencing that tournament.

To me, screwing with the kids that fence in a tournament is not serving them.

In truth, I think we are on the same page. The result of possibly not having things done in time is the only problem I see.


cobalt said...

Good point, but harm is occuring on either of those options. Either they are harmed by not doing things in an expedient fashion, in which you will increase their irritation with "the system" and eventually reduce the fencers in the division. Or you irritate them by removing their chance at ratings by removing tournaments that cause said problem.

Over the long term, it will benefit the division by enforcing getting these results up quickly.

Meredith D. said...

Hmm, I am hearing only rumors about what went down at the meeting, so I can only speculate.

Observers can't ref now? Is that a change? I understand the desire to remove any conflict of interest, but how many people are going to volunteer to sit around a tournament for nothing but gas and lunch money? If there was ever a problem getting volunteers before, it just doubled.

I'm not so rankled about the requirement to enter data quickly. Memories fade, papers get lost. Any more than a day or two and it risks not geting done at all. Our club got a hand slap for a tournament last year because a designated observer never sent in the forms. He "just forgot."

The predicted results of the sanctionin requirements is that there will be more unsanctioned tournaments and fewer, bigger sanctioned tournaments. I haven't decided yet if this is good or bad. The sanctioned tournaments will be better organized, but the change will hurt the smaller clubs more than the larger clubs.

cobalt said...

I don't believe observers could ref before. However, since in order to have a tournament in NC, you must provide an observer. I believe 20 or so people are on the observer list so far.

It's up to the tournament provider to hire an observer. Similar to hiring a ref. If the observer goes for gas and lunch They can also go for less/more then that.

The problem is: With all those little tournaments, a lot of them were not following the USFA rules. This is a problem. The division as a whole is accountable. Not following the rules can get the USFA rankled...

Now a big IMO ramble(Sorry Jim, I'm blog-jacking): If you're looking for tournaments to be a major source of revenue, you're barking up the wrong tree. There's better ways to use that time. If a small club is looking for tourneys to be a significant source of revenue, they'll continue to stay small. There are more cost-effective ways to earn that money if you're a small club (Hell, same can be said for a big club). You'll also aid your fencers more by providing them more bout experience.

See: Camps, clinics, etc...

Tournaments can make money, but it takes a lot of resources to do it right. You can even lose money if you spend TOO much on making it right.

And if it's a tournament with just your own fencers, you need to question the point of having it.

Think about this: Who gets the most fencing at the tournament? Then ask yourself, if you're a coach: Who NEEDS to get the most fencing in at a tournament?

It's the main reason why CHFA stopped holding tournaments. Why fence ourselves? No one was making the trek out to Charlotte(Which is understandably long, but still).

This season I'm doing restricted rating tournaments. It's an experiment. We'll see how it works. Everyone and their mother seems to want to hold an open right now to "get their rating." But I think people are confusing the process and the result. And last I looked, big championships are much more meaningful than big ratings. Think results, not letters.

Anyhow, I'll cut "short" my blogjack.