Getting USABDA sanction?

[etchuck]

So in light of the quest for the proficiency points discussion, I was wondering... what does it take for a competition to get USABDA sanction? And why is it so hard for college comps to get that? (I'm asking for personal interest and for organizational purposes.)

[Warren J. Dew]

There are a couple reasons why collegiate competitions don't tend to get USABDA sanction, only one having to do with 'hard'.

Getting a sanction requires some things that collegiate events find hard to do. For example, there are some requirements about multiple age categories.

Also, there are some rules that the collegiate competitions don't like. For example, most collegiate competitions prefer to allow same sex couples.

On the other side of the equation, there doesn't seem to be any real benefit in getting a sanction.

The same general arguments apply to collegiate competitions getting NDCA sanctions, though the specifics may be slightly different (e.g., a multiyear waiting period).

[Chris Stratton]

There's also the biggie that all the competitors then have to register with the sanctioning body. While this only adds $12 or 15 or something for students, it's $30 to $60 for adults - that's up to twice the registration fee for the competition, with little practical benefit to the competition for requiring it. Granted most intermediate to advanced adult competitors (at least those not part of college teams) already hold at least one of these registrations, but it would seem a real disincentive for post-collegiate newcomers who can currently attend their first comp for something like fifteen bucks.

If USABDA would give organizers more freedom to adapt the rules to local preferences, and drop competitor membership to the same price as a social membership, I could see increased interest applying for sanctions. NDCA's rates are more reasonable, though I'd call on them to allow the same rule adaptability and to exempt competitions with only amateur events from the time/distance conflict rules for granting sanctions. Further, if the number of amateurs registered with NDCA grows, they will need to have proportional voting representation on the board consistent with the average number of votes per registrant held by existing NDCA member organizations (right now USABDA theoretically represents amateurs - with a single vote on the NDCA board).

[bjp22tango]

OK this is going to be comparing apples to oranges, but the comment about collegiate competitions allowing same sex couples got me to thinking.

I thought USABDA was formed originally to bring ballroom dancing into Olympic status. So basically, getting America to follow dance rules that the rest of the world was following in competitions, so they could be standardized for Olympic competition.

Now, taking real life and moving into the silver screen. On Strictly Ballroom, the heroine is "stuck" in amateur competitions dancing with another girl because she "doesn't have a partner".

Since make believe usually takes things from real life, is mixed couple dancing allowed in other countries in USABDA like competition?

Is same sex competition allowed in NDCA competition?

What dance competition governing bodies are there in other countries?

[pygmalion]

Hmm. Good question. I'm not sure why USABDA started, but I thought the whole Olympic debate was relatively recent ... Anybody know what USABDA's mission statement is and how long it's been around?

[etchuck]

Outside of what they post online? History (http://usabda.org/home/our_history_&_activities/index.cfm).

[pygmalion]

Thanks, etchuck. 8)

[Chris Stratton]

I thought USABDA was formed originally to bring ballroom dancing into Olympic status. So basically, getting America to follow dance rules that the rest of the world was following in competitions, so they could be standardized for Olympic competition.

There is always a tradeoff between global uniformity, and adaptation to local needs and preferences. USABDA has chosen to fit itself into the IDSF model, with the result that you hear (some of the) officials privately saying "we'd like to allow that, but we have no choice but to be consistent with IDSF rules". In contrast, the NE college comps have chosen to go their own way and achieve substantial success by responding to the wishes of their local communities. It's not clear that one approach should win over the other, and we may well be better off by having both options. Establishing some framework between the two camps should not be impossible, but it would have to be done in a way that respects the established power and traditions of both sides, each of which's default option is to continue on its present path. Drawing together has to confer substantial new benefits before it is desireable. USABDA could pick up several established "new" comps in the Northeast and perhaps other areas of the country, *IF* they were able to find a way to permit substantial flexibility away from IDSF-inherited rules. But if absolute uniformity remains a requirement, it's unlikely (m)any of these comps will seek sanctions.

[Laura]

I thought USABDA was formed originally to bring ballroom dancing into Olympic status. So basically, getting America to follow dance rules that the rest of the world was following in competitions, so they could be standardized for Olympic competition.

True.

Is same sex competition allowed in NDCA competition?

No, although there is an exception for a young student dancing with a teacher.

What dance competition governing bodies are there in other countries?

You can go to www.idsf.net/index2.htm and click on "Members," which will give you a world-wide list.