NDCA Rule Rescinded: No more amateurs in Pro/am events

nucat78

Active Member
#21
How about this: If one accepts compensation in any form, including honorariums and / or travel expenses, for teaching or dance hosting, one is a professional. That excludes prize money, raffles, auctions, and lotteries.

I do not agree that one should be allowed to teach three nights each week for cash and then compete in an am-am event, "registration" notwithstanding.

But this is not my fight, so...
 

Warren J. Dew

Well-Known Member
#22
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...
This seems to happen a lot with NDCA rules changes. I wonder if there's a way to get feedback on changes like this before they go into effect, or if it's just inevitable that most people won't pay attention to changes until after they see the results.
 
#23
How about this: If one accepts compensation in any form, including honorariums and / or travel expenses, for teaching or dance hosting, one is a professional. That excludes prize money, raffles, auctions, and lotteries.

I do not agree that one should be allowed to teach three nights each week for cash and then compete in an am-am event, "registration" notwithstanding.

But this is not my fight, so...
What makes this tricky is the amateurs over in Europe have much greater freedoms to finance their dancing and win titles. Already, amateurs in the US are far behind their European counterparts, so I understand the desire to find ways to finance their dancing so they can travel, receive training, and compete with the dancers in Europe for World titles.

That said, it get complicated as we also have to consider the Pro-am business in the US. Pro-am is what finances a huge majority of all comps in the US and when you start messing with that, expect MAJOR problems.

I understand much about both sides of the issue, but I wouldn't want to be the one to decide what is best as there are pitfalls no matter how you proceed. I like this latest change as it helps to keep the pro-ams more separated from the Ams, but it still leaves some perplexing problems.
 

Larinda McRaven

Site Moderator
Staff member
#24
This seems to happen a lot with NDCA rules changes. I wonder if there's a way to get feedback on changes like this before they go into effect, or if it's just inevitable that most people won't pay attention to changes until after they see the results.
In most cases the proposed rule changes are only made public one week before the meeting, too late to really do anything about it. And no one but the member orgs sees it because NDCA does not send it to the registrants.
 

Warren J. Dew

Well-Known Member
#25
In most cases the proposed rule changes are only made public one week before the meeting, too late to really do anything about it. And no one but the member orgs sees it because NDCA does not send it to the registrants.
I believe that's what usually happens. My question is, how much difference would it make if registrants got notice, say, a month before the meeting - or if they had a rule saying that rules changes had to pass in two consecutive meetings. You saw the implications immediately, as the other thread attests, but it sounds like most people didn't understand them until they started seeing the effects at competitions.
 
#26
at least this eliminates the possibility of 2 high level amateurs entering as a "pro-am" couple...that makes me more comfortable...
Same here. Although, it doesn't eliminate a situation where only 1/2 of a high-level couple teaches (i.e. a married couple where both are good dancers, but only one of them teaches and has students to compete pro-am with).
 
#28
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.
But wouldn't you still lose those guys regardless? With high-level guys being so rare, and am-am competitions being considerably less expensive and plentiful in your area, and without restrictions on am-am & teaching, at some point wouldn't the guys be drawn to that anyway (especially younger ones, like cantski)?
 

Larinda McRaven

Site Moderator
Staff member
#29
They were doing pro-Am with me already or had committed to it for 2012, and now left to do teacher-student but also stay with their am-am, not to turn pro like cantski.

The thing is, as Tanya sees, it further dilutes the possibility of high-level pro-Am... and all levels of male pro-AM, especially those in the A and B ages, since these are the ones who would be drawn to Teacher-student. One of my guys who would be leaving to do teacher-student is only a silver level dancer. And my new fabulous bronze guy was asking me just the other day what all this means for him if he wanted to make some money.

***
And a few year ago I had a student that I stopped coaching and doing pro-am with out of principle. He dances open am-am with his wife, teaches group classes and picked up a bronze-ish student, that he started doing a silver am-am with. "Pro-am" and am-am at the same time, on Sundays during the amateur single events. There was nothing to stop him, so I stood my ground, either you do pro-Am with me and am-am with your wife, or you do am-am with your wife and teach and amateurPro-am with your student. Guess which one he took? He is in his late 50's and was only a silver level pro-Am. So this isn't just about young males like cantski. Or even the high level international ams...
***

And that situation was 4 years ago... which is probably why I was so keenly aware of what this January ruling really was going to open us up to, beyond the initial premise.
 

DL

Well-Known Member
#30
But wouldn't you still lose those guys regardless? With high-level guys being so rare, and am-am competitions being considerably less expensive and plentiful in your area, and without restrictions on am-am & teaching, at some point wouldn't the guys be drawn to that anyway (especially younger ones, like cantski)?
Your argument that restrictions are irrelevant appears to depend on your premise that there aren't restrictions. Am I misunderstanding?
 
#32
Your argument that restrictions are irrelevant appears to depend on your premise that there aren't restrictions. Am I misunderstanding?
USA Dance reduced restrictions on teaching a while ago, to put high-level US amateurs in better position to compete with their european counterparts, who already have a lot of opportunities to finance their dancing with dancing. NDCA has done same thing wrt its am-am events as well around the same time and I suppose for the same reason. But then its powers-that-be attempted to remove the restriction on pro side of pro-am (so that am guys can compete with their students as pro halves of pro-am events and then still be able to compete in am-am events with their partners - I guess the intention, again, was to give US amateurs another opportunity to finance their dancing with dancing) and I guess it didn't go down that well because more people got access to the pie.

Adding: pro-am competing is already a more expensive option so if I were a sufficiently advanced guy living in a populous area, like the greater NYC or Boston, with lots of am-am competitions to choose from (I am neither of these - a girl living in the middle of nowhere), I would not be very inclined to compete pro-am to begin with, regardless of whether I am allowed to also pretend to be a pro in a pro-am event or not.
 

dlgodud

Active Member
#34
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)
I do not think it is silly to have a division for am (pro)-am competition couples. That actually gives some room for AMs to make money instead of directly competing with professionals.
They close one door, but cannot close everything. They should open one door to make it smoother.
 

nucat78

Active Member
#35
I do not think it is silly to have a division for am (pro)-am competition couples. That actually gives some room for AMs to make money instead of directly competing with professionals.
They close one door, but cannot close everything. They should open one door to make it smoother.
Would you advocate a limit on the amount an Am-pro could make teaching / performing to keep Am-pro status? But ppl cheat on their income tax returns, so I suspect some would lie about their dance income to USAD, etc. as well... :rolleyes:
 

Warren J. Dew

Well-Known Member
#36
I do not think it is silly to have a division for am (pro)-am competition couples. That actually gives some room for AMs to make money instead of directly competing with professionals.
They close one door, but cannot close everything. They should open one door to make it smoother.
If you read the whole thread, they apparently introduced mixed proficiency amateur competition. I don't know what their stance is on payment between the partners.
 

Larinda McRaven

Site Moderator
Staff member
#37
OK... lets catch everyone up to speed.

>2011 we had ams doing "singles" on Sundays. It is basically pro-am but on a day when the pro-am people didn't see it. It is an am that dances with multiple partners, either their students or partnerless girls.

2011 January an official rule was passed that ams could now do legitimate pro-am along side the pros. The Am(Teacher) could dance with their students in a Teacher-student arrangement. Once an am danced Teacher, they could not then do teacher-Student or dance pro-AM, but they could still dance Am-am and Teacher-student.

2011 July the january rule was changed. Ams can now do mixed amateur singles. which is
>2011 we had ams doing "singles" on Sundays. It is basically pro-am but on a day when the pro-am people didn't see it. It is an am that dances with multiple partners, either their students or partnerless girls.
ssoooooo. we really haven't gone anywhere except down the long road back to the beginning....
 

samina

Well-Known Member
#38
(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 ...
just saw this. personally, i think that's a good decision, though it impacts me in no personal way.
 
#39
It doesn't eliminate it. They can still do it... on Sundays.
Doesn't matter for me, as long as they're not competing against someone like me or latingal.

Although, just wondering, if a competition doesn't have most of its amateur events in a separate session - some comps I've been to just had am-am events interspersed throughout the schedule on a day of each particular style, instead of having them all lumped together on one day. In this case, people who pay attention to those things would notice if a person X still dances with multiple partners so it wouldn't just go under the radar.
 

Dance Ads