NDCA Rule Rescinded: No more amateurs in Pro/am events

Discussion in 'Ballroom Dance' started by DanceMentor, Jul 17, 2011.

  1. DanceMentor

    DanceMentor Administrator

    (partially quoted)

    I have been informed that the new NDCA rule allowing amateur teachers to compete with their students in NDCA sanctioned competitions and championships was recinded at a meeting of the NDCA Board of Governors, and amateur teachers will no longer be permitted to enter students into NDCA pro-am events.

    Thought to be a practical answer to a current situation when enacted in January of this year, the NDCA responded to the strong feeling of professional teachers againt this accommodation and the rule was dismantled at the Board's meeting on January 9 2011.

    What I do NOT have is the official text to be included in the rules, but I think this is good news to many. I agree with the change because it strengthens the clear delineation between teachers and students and amateurs.

    USA Dance Response - August 9, 2011
  2. foxtrotboy

    foxtrotboy New Member

    When will this rule take effect? Why has it not taken effect already if it was decided upon in January?
  3. jump'n'jive

    jump'n'jive Active Member

    i'm glad the ndca has decided this. now what i want to see is some kind of fine or sanction against high level pro/am competitors where the am is teaching be handed out. esp when its blatanly obvious and workshops posted all over facebook.
  4. Bailamosdance

    Bailamosdance Well-Known Member

    How will this decision by the NDCA benefit dancers?
  5. pygmalion

    pygmalion Well-Known Member

    I'm confused (and contextually clueless as well, I have no doubt.) What exactly is an amateur teacher? How is that different from a professional teacher?
  6. DanceMentor

    DanceMentor Administrator

    Again, wait for the actual text. I don't have access to that.

    As I understand it, this affects people competing in the Amateur division who also teach and want to enter heats with their students. They won't be able to compete again professional teachers.

    Now keep in mind that there is the classification of "student" which is NOT the same as an "amateur" in that students compete with their "professional" teacher. So this rule helps preserve the sanctity of the pro-am relationship, not allowing those who compete as amateurs to also teach and bring students to compete against pro-ams.

    I suspect there will still be an opportunity for an amateur to compete with a student, just not against pro-ams, but let's wait for the full text. I have two good sources here, but that said, I don't have the text
  7. Bailamosdance

    Bailamosdance Well-Known Member

    How will this decision by the NDCA benefit dancers?
  8. Casayoto

    Casayoto Member

    I think all that decision does is protect "professionals" who aren't very good. The ones that are worth working with will have plenty of students to dance with. This just takes away from the potential pool of pro-am competitors by removing top level amateurs. That means less entries at comps, and less money for the organizers. But at least the sub-par professionals won't have to worry about losing their students to an amateur that can dance circles around them.
  9. debmc

    debmc Well-Known Member

    I think I am confused. So an amateur dancer previously could take a student and compete with this student as a pro-am couple? I am not sure why that would be allowed in the first place, but I have to admit I don't know alot about the politics. Meanwhile, based on a previous posting, a student in a proam couple can be teaching dance as an amateur but then compete as the student in a proam couple. This definetely doesn't seem fair. If you are good enough to teach, surely your should not be the student in a pro am couple competing against other students who will then be unequally matched. Am I missing something? I thought the general idea of pro am competing was teachers( professionals) competing with their students (amateurs). Any other deviation seems unfair, but I admit I don't know all the politics involved.
  10. Meagan

    Meagan Active Member

    Does this mean you're thinking there would be two separate divisions of pro-am? One PRO-am and the other AM(pro)-am? That just seems kind of silly... If they were that concerned about losing that revenue they shouldn't have changed the rule, I think it just dilutes the prestige of both pools by having them compete next to but not with each other (not that I'm exactly immersed in the pro-am world)


    The issue here is allowing "amateur" dancers to be the "pro" in a pro-am couple. I don't know if that helps or adds to your confusion, hopefully helps :)
  11. fascination

    fascination Site Moderator Staff Member

    well...there are degrees of teaching...we could all teach to one degree or another...and therein lies the crux of the problem...there are many ams who are better than many pros....so it is sort of a wet hot mess in terms of how to classify and label any of it and how to have protections in place that make it as equitable as possible
  12. latingal

    latingal Moderator Staff Member

    at least this eliminates the possibility of 2 high level amateurs entering as a "pro-am" couple...that makes me more comfortable...
  13. Larinda McRaven

    Larinda McRaven Site Moderator Staff Member

    Like myself??

    Because honeslty I lost out on that January ruling. When my pool of potential pro-Am boys was reduced because local studios around here hired my boys for quick cash in exchange for doing Pro-am with some of their studio ladies...

    It reduced the amount of pro-am, it did not increase it, because based on the Jan ruling I.am.out.of.my.next.years.pro-am.agenda. At least when Cantski wanted to try to make money in this industry instead of spending it on pro-Am with me, he turned Pro and did it legitimately.

    The outcry from the professional organizations came late, as pros weren't aware of the ruling until after it was already in effect and didn't quite understand the implications... I DID!! and I asked for immediate clarification. (hi gary :) ) As the spring went on and it started to become obvious at comps what was happening pros started to rumble and the two weeks before the July meeting there were several organizations who were actually polling pro members and trying to get a feel as to how they should proceed at the meeting.

    I am happy the rule was removed. Amateurs that want to keep amateur status have no right to walk on the pro-am floor next to me, pretend to be a pro, then walk out that night in an amateur pre-champ or even champ division.
  14. DL

    DL Well-Known Member

    Professional organizations are supposed to act in the interests of their members.

    As for "not very good" -- Larinda already offered a more pertinent view than I can offer; however I note that whether the context is pro-pro or pro-am or am-am, DF discussions often carry a presumption that folks decide with whom they dance based upon skill/ability/credentials. Yet, there is ample evidence that there are many other factors in the decision-making process.
  15. fascination

    fascination Site Moderator Staff Member

    actually, in this economy all pros are affected when the arena is widened...not just ones with smaller skill sets
  16. pygmalion

    pygmalion Well-Known Member

    [disclaimer] I know little to nothing of this world and am probably speaking in ignorance[/disclaimer]

    It seems like the JANUARY ruling allowed amateurs to have it both ways. Amateur when they wanted to be, "pro" when they wanted to be. That doesn't seem right to me. *shrug*
  17. etp777

    etp777 Active Member

    Indeed Pyg. That has been true to some extent even before that ndca ruling, but I've always felt the same as you
  18. Larinda McRaven

    Larinda McRaven Site Moderator Staff Member

    Here is the original discussion in January when the rule was put in to allow ams to dance Pro-am. It barely even got noticed back then. That thread only lived a week before it died off here. It took some time for people to understand really what it was all about. And there is only a handful pros here, and that are going to speak out anyway.

    I spoke out against the NDCA ruling and got nasty pms from people telling me I must "be in bed with someone at USAD" or "have personal involvements with IDSF" because I was obviously anti-WDC and anti-NDCA. :shock: ... right! I just think the rule is anti-Pros who do Pro-am for a living.... me.
  19. Riplash

    Riplash Member

    I think Fascination hit the nail on the head here. I think the problem is how different factions define professional. In some ways anybody who has done a hobby long enough could receive compensation for it somehow. I don't believe that receiving 10 bucks for winning a competition (or even $1000) necessarily makes you a pro. But under NCAA rules that would make you a pro. This topic always came up when I was involved with different sporting clubs at school. I don't have the answers to define the differences between pro or am, but if I would have take up dancing earlier, or have been a slightly better runner, some people would have complained about the little amount of money (5 to 10 dollars) I won at tiny dance events, or tiny races in the middle of nowhere and would have called me a pro.

    I think some but not all people gradually get more and more involved in something and yes they are getting paid for it, but at what point are they a pro? The Answer to the last part is the important answer.

    -Rip
  20. DanceMentor

    DanceMentor Administrator

    Being an amateur, when the January ruling came down, my first reaction was curiosity. Had I lived in a city where there were very few other amateur competitors against me, it would have enhanced my ability to participate in more events. I can remember times when there was either 0 or 1 other couple against us. Or worse, we would be put on the floor with another amateur couple that was much lower level or a different age group. So a couple like us just wanting more ways to compete I could understand the benefit.

    On the other hand, as Larinda stated, if you are running a business in dancing and competing as an amateur, it does seem apparent that there needs to be a clearer line where people need to turn pro. I totally get that.

    I also see where even a couple like us wanting to have a chance to compete through pro-am because there were no other ams entered would be problematic to the pros. Fortunately, we moved to a city where there are lots of other amateur couple now, so that won't be even a consideration regardless of the status of the rule.

    Here is a further quote from the NDCA in response to a clarification request:

Share This Page