These are the numbers of the USCF in the past 120 days (Please note that I only put some of the more important numbers):
Date Adult Senior Young Adults Scholastic Youth Family Total USCF members
1-Feb-07 20326 3060 10142 20085 5815 4613 84229
1-Mar-07 20374 3093 9963 21679 6132 4816 84176
4-Apr-07 20435 3110 9920 23240 6630 5029 84495
2-May-07 20183 3096 9419 23846 6719 5060 82704
1-June-07 20078 3125 9101 24227 6794 5065 81827
The bottom line is the USCF lost 2,402 members in the past 120 days!
The USCF lost 2,402 members even with the increase of 4,142 scholastic members, 979 youth members and 452 family memberships (thanks to people like Ellen B. and Victor F. pushing parents to get this membership so their voices can be heard)!
Full numbers can be found here.
What is Internet Scholastic? I never heard of that.
Why do you call these numbers “chilling”? If not for the Internet Scholastic totals (surely not our highest priority), the membership is up significantly
Now I understand why Goichberg and his slate didn’t want to discuss the issues. The bottom line is this board failed miserably. They lost a $250,000 a year US Championship sponsor in AF4C. They lost Dr. Eric Moskow who was willing to invest $1 million in chess. They insulted Texas Tech and Polgar for their major sponsorship deal which can save students and their parents $100,000 a year.
The membership went down. The USCF lost money. So much money was wasted with the disastrous makeover of the USCF website and now they have to pay Hal Bogner money to fix it again.
This is why they decided to fool the USCF members by insulting and attacking Polgar, Truong, Korenman and Bauer instead of focusing on the real problems. Goichberg and his slate have no good news and no plan to fix the problems. So they resort to deplorable political tactic hoping to win the election.
Did I get this right so far?
Tom allen,
Are we reading the same numbers? The USCF lost 2,402 members in 4 months. That’s not enough to you? None of the current board members have anything to do with scholastic. None of them are pro-scholastic.
WEll membership is increasing by one at least since I rejoined last month.
SO I could vote for”
Susan Paul Korenman and Bauer!!
Are the numbers easonal, as in warm weather?
First thing I checked is that the numnbers don’t add up. they are off by 10,00 to 12,000 per row.
should internet and scholastic be separate categories and did one get dropped??
Second, let’s have some thoughtful discussion of what the numbers mean, and what our goals should be, not insulting people who have promoted chess for decades
I am asking everyone again not to insult Mr. Goichberg or any other candidate. This is not the right way of doing things and it is not helping the USCF. Please make your points but be respectful.
Thank you!
Susan Polgar
The numbers, as I read them, show significant increases in scholastic and youth memberships. In which categories was there a loss of these >1000 members?
http://detroitchess.com/USCFmem2.htm has membership numbers as of 2001. Obviously they change during the months; sometimes they go up, sometimes they go down, to go up again later on. Although the number dropped during the past months, it is still 3000 higher than in September.
Ok,
I actually added the numbers presented, the values don’t add to the sums provided, and they even show a 4000 total increase from February to June.
Now I think you are trying to say something.
The question would be, why is there a 10% drop in Young Adult, and is that masking an issue in Adult which has a 1% drop.
Is it possible that the numbers change after the National or World Open? Is this a normal seasonal flux?
Who knows, but this is a very limited view.
Having gone and looked at the membership numbers on the Detroitchess site, and there is one thing that looks interesting, there is a sharp uptick in family memberships.
These are consolidation memberships. How many members do you lose for every family membership?
I would like to finally add, for a positive scholastic vision, the USCF has completely abandoned the Pacific Northwest, and Washington in general.
The USCF washington state scholastic open had 65 players.
The Washington state Elementary Championship (no-membership requirements) attracted over 1400 players.
There are no scheduled USCF national tournaments west of Dallas through 2012 (from the PNW, Dallas is a long way away.
Every single player that I know and saw, did not know about the Washington Scholastic Open. Every one that I told, came and signed up for the USCF.
There is desire, and interest, and wonderful ignorance of all things bad in the USCF. There are plenty of people that have yet to be abused like the folks at AF4C. There is also plenty of room for the free local organization and the USCF (as noted by the few groups that do joint events).
But the USCF chooses to largely ignore the PNW. The lack of being in the scholastic cycle is just shameful.
You don’t know where your champions will come. Some will undoubtably come from the far west, include them.
actually, this loss in NO MORE THAN A SEASON FLUCTUATION. The membership always has a minimum in Aug-Oct and a maximum in Feb-March.
Comparison of the last two maxima (Feb06-Feb07) shows 200 INCREASE over a year; comparison of the last two minima (sep05-sep06) shows a 400 decline.
But overall the membership goes down since 2003. This is plain evident from the graph
USCF should survey those members that let their membership expire- the results may not show that the main reason is seasonal as assumed. I am sure that Paul, with his marketing background, would institute such critical feedback in order to improve USCF.
the scholastic cycle is pathetic and biased against the whole west coast.
Mr. Goichberg actually spoke highly of GM Susan Polgar in Chicago Open recently. He was appreciative of what she has done for US Chess.
If Mr. Goichberg cares about the USCF, he would issue a public apology to GM Polgar and her husband. They’ve worked harder than anyone for chess and he has no right to speak about any member of the USCF this way. This is not appropriate.
I have never seen ANY election where there was absolute objectivity between contesting political parties. Not one. It remains for the voter to find what he or she THINKS is the truth. Because we are all by nature so subjective. It descibes the human condition.
cowards dont apoligize
Looky here!
http://yyacb.blogspot.com/2007/05/uscf-membership-numbers.html
Yes, It’s GRAPH of the USCF Membership Numbers.
Click on the graph for a larger version.
OK, I’ve broken down the numbers, and presented them graphically at
http://members.cox.net/wilsonchess/uscf%20membership.pdf
There were a few minor errors in dcc’s stats, but nothing to get in a tizzy about. The results are pretty clear:
-The total (Red) decline is due almost entirely to the demise of the internet membership (Light Blue).
– When you factor out the internet membership, total membership (orange) has shot up in the past 6 months.
– However, adult memberships are flat, actually in a steady decline.
– The bump in membership is due to another resurgence in Scholastics (Purple) – looks like about a 30% increase in the past year!
Susan’s point, however, is well taken, especially considering the flatlining (ha ha) of adult memberships. Interesting how scholastics (the one thing USCF has going for them) is the brunt of most attacks.
Anyone who looks at these numbers and boasts growth needs their eyes examined. The good news is, when Susan gets in, we’ll have nowhere to go but up!
Embrace the Patzer!
Dan