In a recent post it was asked why the USCF had seperate fees for TLAs
and for Rating Fees. Maybe we should go back to the old system where
there was (usually) only one fee for both the TLA and the rating fee.

For those who do not remember that far back at one time the USCF had a
system whereby the cost of the TLA was included as part of the rating
fee. Depending on the size of the TLA there would be a minimum set
for the rating fee for an event. It should be noted that part of this
system include 6 free TLAs of up to six lines for each affiliate in a
year. These "Free" TLAs had a minimum rating of $5, the current
minimum fee. Of course this was way back in the 70s.

This system was supposedly abandoned because organizers and clubs
complained about being unable to even remotely estimate costs in
advance of scheduling a tournament. As a result the USCF seperated
out the costs of TLAs from the cost of Rating Fees. In this process
the USCF determined that the 6 free TLA should be discontinued.

Up until the DeFeis TLA debacle the average Chess Life had about 300
TLAs in an issue, without counting Grand Prix events. Since that
time, even after reinstating TLA fees at the old rate, the average
Chess Life has had a little over 100 [non-Grand Prix] TLAs in an
issue. It is interesting if you randomly audit Chess Life TLAs during
any of the 3 periods of seperated fees. You will find that in all 3
cases 50% or more of the TLAs are 6 lines or less, and that 75% of the
TLAs are 8 lines or less. [Yes I actually physically counted TLAs in a
couple of Chess Life issues. I did not include TLAs for National
events, I did not count Grand Prix events, and I didn't count 1 line
TLAs that made reference to another TLA.]

Please note that currently the minimum rating fee is $5, and that a
TLA of 6 lines would cost $12, for a total of $17. We could back to
the old system with TLA actually costed out as part of the rating fee,
but then we would need to develop a sliding scale of minimum fees
based on not just the size of the TLA, but also on the size of a
tournament.

You could leave the standard non-TLA tournament with a $5 minimum
rating fee. For tourmanents with a TLA of 6 lines or less you could
have a $20 minimum rating fee. As this represents an increase I would
also suggest that each affiliate in a calender year be charged a $10
minimum for a TLA of 6 lines or less. This would be to encourage
those clubs and organizers who only run 1 small event a year.

For tournaments with TLAs of 7-10 lines the minimum rating fee could
be $45.

For tournaments with TLAs of over 10 lines I would suggest that the
number of players also be a factor. So a possible set of fees could
be 10+ TLA lines for a tournament under 100 players $70, 100-150
players $90, 151-200 players $120, 201-250 players $150, 251-300
players $200, 0ver 300 players $300.

These are just some rough numbers I have thrown out, they can
obviously be reworked in better formulas. The point would be that the
organizer or club would have a clear idea what the possible set fees
would be for running a tournament.

I am not saying that the current system is not workable and cannot be
made to make a profit. What I have done is given an example of a
different system for TLAs and Rating Fees that could possibly be used.

Personally I believe it is more important for the USCF to be able to
receive tournament reports via the internet, than what the fees should
be for TLAs and rating fees. One year at the delegates meeting I even
made a motion to censure the Executive Board for failing to carry out
a motion from the previous year to do just that.

Lawrence Cohen
Illinois Delegate

"ComputerlessBrother" wrote in message
om...

I am not saying that the current system is not workable and cannot be
made to make a profit. What I have done is given an example of a
different system for TLAs and Rating Fees that could possibly be used.

You have a lot of good ideas in your post. One thing that should happen is
for the USCF to cover or make a profit on the ratings service. First, they
should cost it out and then set a fee at 150% of the cost. Second, if the
resulting fee would generate price resistance, the costs should be reduced.
Probably through streamlining and modernization. Third, they should charge
the price and ignore all the whining from the scholastics folks. Either we
all pay our way or we do without.

StanB

"StanB" writes:

"ComputerlessBrother" wrote in message
om...

I am not saying that the current system is not workable and cannot be
made to make a profit. What I have done is given an example of a
different system for TLAs and Rating Fees that could possibly be used.

You have a lot of good ideas in your post. One thing that should happen is
for the USCF to cover or make a profit on the ratings service.
...

A good start would be to compute ratings correctly. Right now, events
are not being rated in a timely fashion, and even when they are rated,
the ratings are being computed incorrectly.


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/

A good start would be to compute ratings correctly. Right now, events
are not being rated in a timely fashion, and even when they are rated,
the ratings are being computed incorrectly.

Kenneth Sloan

But we've always done it that way :-P

Rp