Have been thinking of the total number of active directors, with the amount of active directors with each level of certification. If there are few directors, then there should be very little amount of USCF members. If there are a number of directors, then there should be a larger pool of USCF members.
If there are zero directors with the title of local or higher in one or a number of states: there should be very few tournaments making the USCF membership in that state small. If there is a large number of directors in any given state, that state should have a large amount of tournaments making a greater amount of USCF memberships in that state.
This is the way the question should be answered, if we pick state A with 10 directors in the total state, that had as a total 30 tournaments in a given year, would have X amount of USCF membership.
The reason for asking this question or wanting the question to be answered in such a matter. As it looks to be clear, the directors are the back bone of the federation. Without directors, tournaments drop to little or zero in a given area; without tournaments the USCF membership starts to fall in that region.
I’m not sure what the analysis you suggest would tell us, and there are a few data problems with it.
In a typical year, about 1000 TDs are listed as the chief TD for one or more events.
Looking just at the TD certification data, there are 930 club TDs, 495 local TDs, 206 senior TDs, 14 ANTDs and 70 NTDs. Not all of them are active, some may be active but never serve as chief TD. There are also some active TDs who aren’t listed as having current certification in the USCF’s records, as I mentioned in another thread yesterday.
Under our current rating reporting (.DBF) structure, only 2 TDs per section can be listed, so there are probably some active assistant TDs that aren’t listed in the USCF’s records as having any recent directing experience.
Trying to find the right level of regional analysis is not easy. For several years the most active TD in Nebraska actually lived in Council Bluffs Iowa.
Also, how do you gauge the impact of ‘outside’ directors or organizers? Philadelphia undoubtably benefits from the World Open, but I doubt if the TDs credited for directing that event are locals.
Have the federation ever did a listing of state by state with how many directors are in a given state. If looking with 50 states, would make the norm of 18 3/5 with club directors in each state; with 9 9/10 with local directors in each state being the norm; with 4 3/25 with senior directors in each state being the norm. Some states would have a greater number of club directors, local directors, senior directors; there would be states with zero or lower numbers of club directors, local directors, senior directors.
If looking at New York state, being a large number of tournaments in a given year, or looking at a smaller state having very little amount of tournaments in a given year. Sure, the ANTDs and the NTDs will go from one state to the next to be a director. Have let to know of any directors willing to go from state to state to be a director. Sure Terry and Bill can say they have crossed state line to be a director: that is not their norm to go from coast to coast being directors.
Not asking you Nolan from going each and every state to show the numbers. It would be nice to see in the pages of Chess Life or the rating supplement. What is being asked, what states that do not have any directors over the certification of local; then we can look at the number of tournaments that given state has during a given year.