Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: WYCC Funding for CYCC Winners

  1. #11

    Default Anticipated 2010 CYCC Numbers??

    Hi Ellen:

    It appears a rather hectic time for you at the moment. Thanks for squeezing out some time to answer.

    I guess my concern is with the new restrictions on the CYCC, how many do you reasonably expect at the 2010 CYCC from the provinces? For example, I understand that the CFC gets $ 100 per CYCC player. If there were 150 players, CFC would get $ 15,000. From what I can gather, that would be fairly close to the average the CFC has gotten over the last 5 years under the old system ( the stats show a 5-year attendance average at the CYCC of 153 ).

    Does my " guesstimate " of 150 2010 CYCC players seem to accord with your projections under the new motion?

    Also, is it only the first place finisher in the Provincial YCC that " qualifies " to come to the CYCC? Or do the 2nd and 3rd place finishers also get the right to come to the CYCC?

    You can answer after the weekend - no rush on this. Thanks.

    Bob

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kapuskasing
    Posts
    154

    Default

    Hi Bob,

    We made it through the tournaments and have almost finished reports, cleaning and finances. It was a great party!

    Your Financial info is off somewhat. The CFC receives a minimum of $125 per player(early registration) and after that it is $150.

    Probably the most influential reasons for many or few players are:
    1) location(is it close to a large youth playing population?) and
    2) are the organizers aggressive with publicity and organizational amenities. So in response to your question, I have no problem believing that there will be as many players next year as this year if the tournament is located in a popular area and the organizers work hard at bringing people out.

    It is the first three places (ties included) which qualify for the CYCC. Each Province has 12 qualifying youth.

    One thing that might be interesting is to allow some places for the organizers to offer to their local players who may not have qualified in other ways. This is a common practice on the International level to encourage those interested in organizing the event.

    Ellen

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ellen Nadeau
    Hi Bob,

    It is the first three places (ties included) which qualify for the CYCC. Each Province has 12 qualifying youth.

    Ellen
    Hi Ellen:

    Just so I'm clear, each province can send the first 3 finishers ( + ties ) in each of the 12 groups. So there is a minimum of 36 players that a province can qualify into the CYCC. That seems a lot of players for a province to send. I doubt many provinces would be likely to achieve this - it would be a total of 360 players if all provinces complied - over twice the last 5-year average number of players in the CYCC ( 153 players ).

    Do you have any projections on what each province is expected to send, on average? ( I take it from your post, that you see no problem hitting the 153 players average. )

    Bob

    P.S. I have been working on some $ calculations, which seem to suggest the new system will at least equal the fund raising of the prior CYCC's , on average, removing anomalies like Ottawa, which was unusual. I'll post them after I consult a bit more.

  4. #14

    Default Supporting Motion 2009-13

    I am going to be voting in favour of Motion 2009-13 ( Nadeau/Lavin ) on reform of the CYCC.

    It seeks to restrict entry to the 3 top qualifiers from each age/gender group from each province, rather than being open to all as in the past.

    So the main point of the motion in my mind seems to be an attempt to push participation down to the provincial level. I suppose it is hoped that there is greater chance of participation if a major junior YCC is held in the province, where it is more accessible to parents, and less costly, than having to travel perhaps half way across the country to attend a CYCC. It is hoped, I believe that the motion will greatly increase the YCC attendances, since it will now be a qualifier for the CYCC. It is felt that the total no. of participants in all provinces, will be much greater than the total attending the current CYCC, even if the new CYCC itself imight be somewhat smaller ( though this is not clear ).

    Is this hope realistic? If it is, then is not this “ promoting chess “ for the CFC, by increasing overall junior participation in CFC-sponsored junior events? The CYCC itself, in a sense, will become the champion of provincial champions tournament. Is this not a worthy goal of the new proposal ? I realize it is taking a chance with what has recently proved to be a successful product, but is it worth the chance, to improve overall Canadian junior participation? I think so.

    I have done some rather basic financial caluclations to try to determine the financial reasonableness of the new system, and whether it can be expected to generate at least the same amount of prize funding for the WYCC as the old system. It seems that at minimum it will. Here is my calculation:

    A CYCC Revenue Comparison: Old System vs Reformed System
    ( prepared by Bob Armstrong )
    Revision 2, May 21, 2009

    Attempt at Reconstructing CFC Revenue from Past CYCC’s

    The average no. of players in a CYCC, using the last 5 year stats, is approx. 150 players.

    Remitted to CFC out of CYCC entry registration - $ 100

    Revenue: 150 X $ 100 = $ 15,000

    Projected CFC Revenue Under Proposed Reform ( Motion 2009-13 )

    Motion 2009-13 Re: CYCC Qualifiers
    (Ellen Nadeau / David Lavin)
    The motion to replace the Articles 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 of the CFC handbook is as follows:
    Will participate in the CYCC 2010 and subsequent CYCCs, only:
    -the qualifiers from that years YCCs
    -the qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year
    -the highest rating of each age category (open and female) of each province(as of May 1st prior to
    the CYCC)

    Calculation:
    A) from CYCC

    Item 1 : Top 3 qualifiers from that year’s YCC’s = 12 ( 6 groups, open & female ) X 3 winners x 10 provinces = 360 players.
    Item 2 : Top 3 qualifiers to WYCC from CYCC previous year = 12 ( 6 groups, open & female ) X 3 winners = 36
    Item 3 : No. of Highest Rating from Provinces = 12 ( 6 groups, open & female ) X 10 provinces = 120.

    Maximum Total ( If all eligible attend ): 360 + 36 + 120 = 516

    Remitted to CFC out of CYCC entry registration - $ 125 ( minimum starting in 2009 )

    Revenue : 516 X $ 125 = $ 64.500

    B) from YCC’s

    Assume an average of 6 players ( admittedly a somewhat random number ) per 12 groups X 10 provinces = 720 players

    Remitted to CFC per YCC player - $ 6 per player X 720 players = $ 4,320
    ( Note: it may be slightly less than this because there is a maximum remittance per YCC of $ 400; also there is a cheaper remittance option of $ 4 per player ).

    C) Total Revenue: $ 68,820 !!??

    Questions: We are expecting each province to send approx. 48 players or a total of approx. 480 ( a few less due to overlapping ) players. How realistic is that? How can this be when the average has historically been over the last 5 years, 150 players. And a large portion of the 150 have been from the home province of the CYCC. Moreover, Governor Ken Craft has raised the concern about this motion that some provinces do not have the infrastructure to hold a provincial YCC. Is he right? Will some provinces not participate? We have also seen that some groups ( especially female ) have difficulty getting participants – will that affect numbers? And how many parents of the “ qualifiers “ will be willing to bear the cost of attending the CYCC, wherever it is held. The figure of over 450 players in the CYCC is obviously wildly optimistic, though these are the numbers who can qualify.
    The main issue though is whether the new system can at least generate as many funds towards prizes as the old system. So lets assume , rather than over 450, a number less than the average no. of the last 5 years, which is 150. I will choose 100 players – it is below the average because players are limited to at least 3 per group from each province, eliminating those home province players who now would not be entitled to play. I feel 100 is achievable under the new system ( it would be approx. 22% of the number entitled ).

    Revised Reform Revenue Projection Based on Lower Anticipated Turnout

    A ) from CYCC – 100 players @ $ 125 = $ 12,500 ( note: the average CYCC has been 153 players )
    B ) from YCC’s - $ 4, 320
    C) Total Revenue - $ 16,820.

    Revenue Comparison:

    Old System - $ 15,000
    Reformed System - $ 16,820

    Conclusion

    The reformed system will produce at least as much prize funding toward the WYCC as did the prior system.

    Bob

  5. #15

    Default Just a detail

    Last year one of the sections was won by a Canadian citizen who lives outside of Canada. Are those kids admitted directly to CYCC?

    Also if one of the top 3 in YCC is declining to go to CYCC, is the next one on standings list allowed to replace him/her?
    Last edited by Andrei Botez; 05-23-2009 at 04:57 AM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    40
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    I suppose this isn't as fast as you were hoping for, but a New Brunswick procincial YCC event is organized each year in Moncton (or has been as long as I've been playing). Having players go to the CYCC from this is another story; I believe we send about 6 players each year and 2-3 of them don't even play the provinvial event. The predictions on participation are a lttle high, then, for New Brunswick; we had 20-30 players at last year's provincial tournament, when you combine all sections.

    There's no way you could know about the event, though; it's nowhere to be seen on the internet, hasn't been rated in three years and the only reason I know about them is because I played in them.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •