It isn't fair to the closed dancers to allow open dancers to dance down. You may want to think about registering for that event. They make it very clear that there will be absolutely no refunds for ANY reason. Right now things are uncertain if a competition will take place.
NDCA Multi/Scholarship Qualifications
- Thread starter DanceDrummer
- Start date
- Status
DanceDrummer
Active Member
Why wouldn't this apply to AMs?
10. Students must be entered in a minimum of four single dances per scholarship entered.
10. Students must be entered in a minimum of four single dances per scholarship entered.
DanceDrummer
Active Member
I see, thx. Yeah I seen that too. So don't they usually allow any entries beyond the deadline? Are dance fees due then or just entry? I can't remember, some gave discounts before the deadline but it really wasn't a cut-off? I'll see how things are going by mid may, if not well I'd want confirmation of a refund it they cancel or I won't go. We had to reroute our flights from a cancelled Dallas Star Ball, a one time allowance, after that we loose that money so keeping fingers crossed.
Because they have different entries. There are no scholarship events for am/am.
You may want to go through the website and look at all the info provided.
DanceDrummer
Active Member
Not really. The per dance fees are about the same whether it's single, multi, or scholarships, so it seems to reason if AMs want to dance multi's or scholarships(if applicable) they should be held to the same qualifications standards as students. I don't think there is this "pool of $" held aside from scholarships since they pay out like some think. The pay out comes from the Organizers receivables as event cost. Problem is there is not enough AM-AMs to justify a payout nor minimum single number of dance requirements, whether it be for multi, scholarship or whatever they want to call it, & pro's don't get paid..... The same reason NDCA does not have AM-AM performing weekend evening shows since there is little profit, just like USA/WDSF does not have PA especially American on weekend nights since that's not where they make their most money.
The rule makes little sense other than that. There are no justifications for charging more for multi's/scholarships if someone chooses not to dance singles, that is not the answer either. If a competitor is going to dance X number of predetermined dances they can afford/dance nothing will change, they should have a choice how the want to distribute their money, not the Organizer. At the end of day, it drives the same number of dance/entry fees, spectator admissions fees(and in some cases since most single dances are during work days/matinee's it can drive higher profits to Organizer's by not dancing any single dances if it suits the competitor's situation/work schedule & supporting friends/family network better).
The bit sadly.... only problem is I left a fragment. Husband came in... and I edited. I would NOT want to do away with the divisions in Bronze. I'd be fine with doing away with the fragmented divisions in Silver or highter which is what you listed. But I would want to keep them in Bronze where I compete.Well, the more you know! You're the first person I've met to positively defend this approach. Now I want to pick your brain about it
But the reason I like divisions in Bronze isn't how much they tell you. It's that as a fairly new dancer, I like the feeling of having the opportunity to dance in a somewhat protected area. I don't want to be in a situation where the only dance I can compete in is one where I will surely be in the bottom half. If that was my situation, then I just flat out don't want to compete.
I imagine I'll feel differently once I'm at a slightly higher level and compete in Silver. But in Bronze, I want protected classes where I can dance relative to people at my level. After that, I'm fine with losing in the multi-dance events. But if I don't have any dances where I'm screened, I don't want to bother to compete. So... I wouldn't and therefor wouldn't spend. After all: I'd get nothing out of it. I already know I'm not competitive at that level. I don't need to go to a competition to learn that!
I want feedback-- at my level. I also want chance to get used to competing so that I know what's involved once I am better. I also like to have a "goal" to work toward.
But precisely because I do want all of the above, I have absolutely no interested in going to a competition if my only role is to fill the bottom of the unfragmented field to make those at the top feel they got to "compete" and where the only feedback I can get is that I'm still not as good as the top of Bronze!
Sure. And people who enter 4 singles and a multi contribute more to the receivables than someone who only enters events with monetary prizes. If people don't spend on the singles, then the receivables will be lower and there will be little or no money to fund the scholarships.
Perhaps the answer is to let people enter multis and scholarships for the "win", but restrict eligibility for the money prizes to those who also entered at least 3 singles. So, say there are prizes for 1st, 2nd and 3rd. The first place winner didn't enter singles, but everyone else did. Then the actual monetary prize goes to the ones who won 2nd, 3rd and 4th. If there are insufficient numbers of entries who danced enough single dances, the purse could be added to some other purse. Perhaps the pro purses?
This solution would allow those who only want feedback they get from competing against the full field to get that feedback. It presumably also drive the same number of dance/entry fees, spectator admissions and so on since those people presumably are principly motivated by the feedback or competition. Competitors who don't want to dance single dances if they prefer not to and won't need to pay for them.
Seems to me this might be the solution that doesn't increase the cost for those who only want feedback from larger fields.
For NDCA comps, Silver 1, Silver 2, Full Silver and just ways to have more heats. My teacher might take 2 silver level students who are in the same age category to a competition that has both a Championship and a Scholarship. Remember, some of us like dancing the single dances. I like to do three sets before doing a multi-dance. The other silver student might want to as well. Without all of the sub-catagories (both level and age), that wouldn't be possible.
DanceDrummer
Active Member
Lucia, you seem to be good at comp dance structure. I have a challenge for you. Come up with a new structure that has no singles, just multis & scholarships or what ever you want to call them, back to back dances any number or mix you want. How would you structure that? Forget what exist today. You can add purse money or not, you decide?
ProgressNotPerfection
Forum Master
What’s the goal? Earn the most money for the organizer? Or offer most number of heats possible for dancers? Or eliminate (or minimize) unfairness like sandbagging? Or decrease number of categories & levels?
Dance,
I already said I like singles. So I don't think I'm the right person to come up with one as I wouldn't be attracted to that sort of event.
I think you need someone who wants a "no singles" structure to suggest one. I think you and Fiesta are the ones who want those to exist? Or not? Obviously if no one wants them to exist then there is no point in trying to design one.
I already said I like singles. So I don't think I'm the right person to come up with one as I wouldn't be attracted to that sort of event.
I think you need someone who wants a "no singles" structure to suggest one. I think you and Fiesta are the ones who want those to exist? Or not? Obviously if no one wants them to exist then there is no point in trying to design one.
@lucia_l, @RiseNFall, @Warren J. Dew, thank you for the perspective. I suspected I had to be missing something, and you all have provided valuable insight.
I agree with lucia on this. I think single dances make a lot of sense, especially at lower levels. In Bronze there will usually be entire dances that someone has not yet studied. Even in Silver, while I'd expect competitors to have at least passing familiarity with every dance in their style, there is often clear unevenness in the quality. Multi-events only are too steep a barrier to entry.
In fact, the only argument in favor of multi-dances is that they are logistically more efficient. No need to do laps through the on-deck area. Other than that, single dance events are all upside, relatively speaking.
No, I've no beef with single-dance events. It's field fragmentation that annoys me, but lucia and Warren and RiseNFall have given compelling reasons why that model can make sense.
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
Just for the record, I don't think it necessarily makes sense for adult amateur couples. However, I'm not sure there is a good model for noncollegiate adult amateur competitions right now.
They do this because of teachers mostly. And money. If they lumped them all together, then a pro-am teacher could only take one student to a comp at a time. For example- my teacher currently has 3 silver b smooth students. Those various levels of silver in the single dances allows us each to get a couple of rounds on singles in- dancing in our age and occasionally dipping into the age below.
Also, it’s money- cuz people are willing to do it. When I first started, I used to dance 5 or 6 rounds on singles (usually the 3 rounds at my age in pre, intermediate, and full plus the age below) . I did it cuz I wanted to dance more, I wanted the practice, and I wanted the exposure. And the organizers wanted my money
I don’t know that as much now, but that’s also because I now do 3 styles vs just one back then. But it was a pretty great way at the time for me to progress quickly.- Status