Maybe the rating fees should be based on number of sections AND number of players AND number of games. Such a structure would recognize that all three of these contribute to costs. Something like this:
Submitted on-line: $5.00 per section, plus 35 cents per player, plus 10 cents per game.
Submitted on paper: $5.00 per section, plus 50 cents per player, plus 30 cents per game.
This would eliminate the need for a minimum, since everything would cost at least $5.00. And it would remove much of the objection to large fees for blitz events, as additional games (without additional players) don’t add much.
The scheme would also recognize that, for events submitted on paper, the per-game cost is legitimately a higher proportion of the total cost than it is for on-line submissions.
It would be better for organizers of long events, such as blitz tournaments. It would be simple, not complex, to have a per-section fee and a per-player fee and a per-game fee, and would smooth out some of the inconsistencies.
I, for one, will be less inclined to submit blitz tournaments for rating. Our typical blitz is a 12-player round robin - rating fee $11.88. Now it will be $16.50. We don’t charge entry fees or have prizes and the rating fee is paid for by the affiliate. Perhaps we’d be better off charging $5 to play, having a $100 prize fund (increasing participation) and not bothering to have it rated.
The fact that the new board immediately takes action to increase the cost of running tournaments is a very bad sign.
You hit the minimum as soon as you rate 12 games. 25 percent of USCF tournaments have fewer than 12 games? I doubt it, but I know who would know for sure.
Anyway, in the scheme of life’s expenses, the new rates seem reasonable. I can’t think of much else I can do for $0.25. That gets me half an hour on a parking meter, a large gumball or a postcard stamp. If it ensures that very-much-improved rating system breaks even, then bravo.
The $5 per section would be a burden on some tournaments (I’m thinking of the annual Hadley scholastic class with three grade-based divisions that each have nine sections, but there are other states with a similar type of tournament - uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php … 1-10336015 ). When submitted on-line it doesn’t seem like there is much more work than if the sections of the three divisions were consolidated and it was submitted as a three section tournament.
For that matter, you would give some TDs an incentive to submit everything as a single section tournament (multiple quads first come to mind).
Also, it would throw an additional burden on cross-sectional games that are often put in an extra games section.
The fact that 25% of the events are at the minimum does not mean that 25% of the rating income isn’t affected. I doubt that as much as 10% of the games are played in minimum events. Probably not even $5.
OK, I can see some problems with a per-section fee. The main point of my proposal, though, was to recognize that costs depend more on the number of players than on the number of games. Having a per-player fee instead of, or in addition to, a per-game fee would tend to smooth things out.
Bill, while I can see your point with regards to economies of scale for large events, in order for such a proposal to work (ie, to generate the amount of revenue it takes to run the ratings department, which is why the rates are being increased) we would probably have to increase the per-game rate for smaller events, in effect having them subsidize the larger events.
By “smaller” and “larger” in this case I assume you mean “shorter” (fewer rounds) and “longer” (more rounds).
Whenever the rating fee for one type of event is decreased, of course the rating fee for another type must be increased (assuming fees are designed to cover costs).
Currently, the rating fees for longer events are out of proportion, compared to both (a) the costs to USCF of rating these events, and (b) the burden on the organizers.
If per-player fees were added and per-game fees reduced, rather than saying that shorter events would subsidize longer events, you could equally well say that the current subsidy, which is the other way around, would end.
Since the current pricing structure is based solely on the number of games, which (ignoring unplayed games) is a function of players X rounds, going to some other pricing model will require a careful study of how to restructure pricing, both from the standpoint of making it generate the desired level of revenue and the policy implications of a different pricing structure.
I haven’t done the modeling work to look at what makes for a revenue-neutral change, and at the moment I doubt I will be doing it, as the Board has made its pricing decision.
Mark, how much of the USCF’s administrative expenses are you willing to include in the cost of running the ratings department?
The range of numbers Bill Hall and I came up with in May, including direct costs, a portion of administrative costs (things like the accounting department) and overhead expenses was somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000. With approximately 518,000 games rated during the 2006-07 fiscal year that’s somewhere between 29 and 39 cents/game.
