For many fencers, their primary interaction with USA Fencing comes through national events – NACs, Junior Olympics, and Summer Nationals. It’s no surprise, then, that NAC-related topics generate intense discussion among participants, parents, coaches, and officials alike. As someone who frequently writes about these issues, I want to outline the major challenges we face in national events and propose potential solutions.

Critical Issues Facing National Events

Location and Timing Challenges

• Geographic Distribution: One of the biggest concerns for many fencers is the location of National Events, which presents two major issues: the criteria for location selection and the significant imbalance between East and West Coasts. The current policies are heavily influenced by politics rather than practical considerations for the fencing community. It’s time to review these policies that substantially impact tournament accessibility and travel costs for participants.
• Late Location and Date Announcements: The announcement of NAC locations comes far too late for effective planning. While we’ve seen some improvement recently with about 11-12 months outlook for the 2025-2026 season locations, this is still insufficient. Families need more advance notice to plan travel, coordinate schedules, and manage costs effectively, especially when traveling across the country.
• Event Composition Uncertainty: A much bigger problem is the uncertainty around which events will be included in each NAC. The 2024-2025 season saw the most dramatic changes in the last decade – events traditionally held in one NAC were moved to different NACs or replaced entirely, and some NACs (like this year’s December NAC) were canceled altogether. This makes it challenging for fencers and families to plan their competitive season effectively.
• Tournament Schedule Delays: The timing of schedule releases creates multiple problems:
  • For some NACs, we don’t know which events will be held until late in the previous season. For example, while we know the dates and locations of the next season October and November NACs, we don’t know what events they will have. We can only guess based on the previous seasons, but as this season shows, our guess can be far off the actual event composition.
  • For major tournaments like Summer Nationals, while we know all the events, the schedule remains unknown, preventing families from booking travel in advance
  • Daily event schedules (start times) aren’t released until late in the process, forcing families into expensive last-minute travel arrangements that could have been avoided with proper advance notice

Event Structure and Competition Issues

Championship and Event Integrity Problems: Multiple examples demonstrate serious planning issues in our major national events:

• This season’s Junior Olympics has no Junior Team Championship, which is absurd for a championship event. While the Junior Team event was moved to April, this creates a serious problem: after JOs, fencers born in 2005 age out of Juniors and can’t participate in the April NAC Junior Team event (which is for 2006-born fencers). This means Juniors in their year (2005) can’t compete in their team event at all, including those who will represent the country at the World Championships in April.
• At last year’s April NAC, Division 1 Men’s Epee and Junior Team Men’s Epee were scheduled on the same day, forcing fencers to choose between individual and team events
• Summer Nationals saw multiple scheduling conflicts that prevented participation in overlapping age/skill categories:
  • Cadet Women’s Epee was scheduled the same day as Senior Team events
  • Veteran events conflicted with Division 1A competitions These conflicts deny fencers opportunities to compete in events they’ve qualified for, effectively reducing participation and competitive opportunities.

Team Event Format Deterioration: Team Championships have fundamentally departed from their original purpose as club championships. In every other country, team championships are competitions between organizations – whether clubs, army branches, cities, or regions. This was also true in the USA until recently, when it became possible for any three fencers to register as a team. While the rational is noble (not every fencer has 2 clubmates to compose a team), the eventual change undermines the fundamental nature of championship competition as seen throughout the sports world.

Event Combination Issues: The current combination of events often lacks logical coordination. For example, combining Division 1 and Junior events makes more sense than Division 1 and Cadet as it seen at January NAC, since the Junior age category is more encompassing than Cadet. These illogical combinations affect athlete performance and participation opportunities.

Scheduling and Logistics

• Poor Daily Schedule Planning: The daily schedule suffers from multiple problems:
  • Schedules are released very late in the season. While this has improved compared to two years ago, it’s still inadequate
  • Event ordering prioritizes projected numbers over athlete needs. For example, scheduling Day 1 – Cadet, Day 2 – Y14, Day 3 – Junior creates problems for fencers who aged out of Y14, while Day 1 – Y14, Day 2 – Cadet, Day 3 – Junior would work much better. When we look at the Summer Nationals last season, we saw examples when 3 adjacent age categories (Y14/Cadet/Junior) needed to spend 6 or even 7 (WF) days!
  • Morning/Evening event times are inconsistent. Events for the same gender/weapon should maintain consistent timing throughout the tournament to allow adequate recovery time
  • Conflicting events are frequently scheduled on the same day, preventing many fencers (for example Cadets and Veterans at last Summer Nationals) from participating in additional events they’ve qualified for.
• School Break Utilization: The tournament calendar fails to effectively utilize common school breaks:
  • Approximately 85% of schools nationwide have a break during Thanksgiving week, yet we don’t optimize our schedule around this opportunity
  • About 95% of schools have a winter break the week before Christmas, making this an ideal time for a December NAC
  • Running events from Saturday through Tuesday (rather than Friday through Monday) during these breaks would better accommodate both students and working parents
  • This scheduling would also make it easier for college students to participate

The Path Forward

We’re entering a new era for American fencing. Our sport has never been bigger domestically, and our international success, including a huge foil success at the Paris Olympics and a consistent great performance at Cadet and Junior levels across all weapons – is unprecedented. We’ve done something exceptional in the last quarter of a century, but to continue this trajectory, we need to evolve our national tournament structure.

At the recent NAC, I had numerous productive discussions with board members and the national office about these challenges. I’m encouraged by their receptiveness and believe there’s great potential for meaningful dialogue and collaborative solutions to these issues. With a new board comprising individuals who deeply understand how fencers, parents, clubs, and coaches operate and think, we have a unique opportunity to implement meaningful change.

The solutions I propose below range from immediate improvements to innovative structural changes. Some may seem unconventional, but with USA Fencing’s growth and changing needs, we need to think beyond traditional approaches.

Innovative Approaches to Consider

1. Split-Location Tournament Model:
   • Host different weapons at separate locations – for example, right of way weapons in one location and epee in another
   • Create two major hubs – East and West Coast – with dedicated equipment storage
   • Reduce transportation costs by moving equipment between closer locations
   • Alternate locations between weapons for subsequent NACs
   • Conduct ROI analysis for equipment storage and transportation optimization
   • While this presents initial logistical challenges, particularly with official availability, the organization can develop efficient processes within a few seasons
2. Streamlined Tournament Structure:
   • Develop smaller, focused 2-3 day NACs to reduce venue costs and improve scheduling flexibility
   • Implement strategic event combinations based on age category overlap:
     • Pair Division 1 with Junior events rather than Cadet events
     • Arrange youth events in ascending age order
   • Return to true club-based team championships:
     • Restrict team registration to recognized clubs
     • Align with international standards for organizational representation
     • Preserve the traditional competitive structure of championship events
3. Calendar and Schedule Optimization:
   • Align with common school breaks:
     • Schedule NACs during Thanksgiving break (Saturday through Tuesday)
     • Utilize pre-Christmas winter break for December NAC
     • Coordinate with typical college semester schedules
   • Implement consistent daily scheduling:
     • Maintain same-time slots for specific weapon/gender combinations throughout tournaments
     • Release complete daily schedules when locations are announced
     • Structure event progression to minimize age-out impacts
   • Eliminate same-day conflicts between events
   • Consider regional preferences and travel patterns in location selection
4. Official Development and Support:
   • Create comprehensive referee development programs:
     • Address both quality improvement and quantity expansion
     • Enhance accessibility of referee education
     • Develop clear advancement pathways
   • Establish sustainable staffing models for split-location tournaments
   • Provide adequate rest time for officials between events
5. Senior NAC Restructuring:
   • Replace rating-based divisions with performance-based divisions determined at each NAC
   • It can be done either with two-day format as I proposed in this post, or any other national skill-based division instead of ratings
   • Require regional qualification through Division 1A ROCs
   • Award national points for all divisions with different coefficients
6. Regional and National Points Reform:
   • Implement rolling regional points that don’t reset seasonally
   • Award points to all participants in regional events, not just top 40%
   • Create region-specific rankings rather than national rankings for ROCs
   • Establish proportional qualifying spots based on region size
   • Combine all division points earned at the national events  into a single national standing list
   • Reduce emphasis on ratings in favor of actual performance metrics
   • Enhance importance of regional events as national qualifiers

Implementation Strategy

Given that national events generate approximately 50% of yearly revenue, these changes require careful oversight and strategic implementation. Here’s how we can move forward:

1. Board Oversight:
   • Establish detailed review processes for national event planning
   • Create metrics for evaluating tournament success
   • Monitor financial impacts of structural changes
   • Regular assessment of implementation progress
2. Phased Implementation:
   • Begin with most critical issues (schedule announcements, daily schedules)
   • Test split-location model with selected events
   • Gradually expand successful pilot programs
   • Maintain flexibility to adjust based on community feedback
3. Community Engagement:
   • Regular consultation with clubs, coaches, and athletes
   • Transparent communication about changes and rationale
   • Clear feedback channels for stakeholders
   • Annual review and adjustment of policies

We’ve achieved something exceptional in American fencing over the past quarter-century. With a board that deeply understands the fencing community’s needs and operations, we have a unique opportunity to implement meaningful change. The recent discussions with board members and national office staff about overall issues with national events demonstrate their understanding of these challenges and willingness to address them. While some of these changes may present initial challenges, they’re essential for supporting our sport’s continued growth and success.

This transformation won’t happen overnight, but with careful planning, strong leadership engagement, and community input, we can create a tournament system that better serves everyone in our fencing family. The positive response from leadership suggests we’re at a crucial moment where substantial improvements are possible through collaborative effort.

---

Note: I welcome additional points and perspectives in the comments section to ensure we have a comprehensive discussion about these crucial issues.