College coach's recruiting preferences

[C.I.C.]

Generally, do college teams try to maintain their roster size; replacing in-kind the Seniors who have graduated with the same gender/weapon, or is it more likely that the rosters will vary from year-to-year driven by the gender/weapon of the incoming Freshman who've selected their school?

What I'm looking for is the coach's preference, not what they may, in reality, have to settle for.

For example; will a coach who currently has 3 fencers in each gender/weapon be more inclined to recruit a moderatly skilled Freshman of the same weapon as a graduating Senior (a men's epee for departing men's epee), or will the coach choose to recruit a very strong potential Freshman regardless of departures of Seniors (very strong men's sabre, to add the the 3 on the team already, leaving men's epee at just 2)?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

College coaches want the best fencers. The vast majority of coaches can't offer athletic scholarships, most can't affect other kinds of scholarship money, so they usually recruit anyone and everyone that they think will be an asset to the team.

While the top three slots for each squad may usually be full or close to full, every coach needs there to be more than that-- a minimum of 4 for each squad, and more are a really good idea in case people get hurt, and so that people don't get tired of fenicng the exact same people.


In general? Coaches get what they get, and they create the rest.

Also? Really strong freshmen are sometimes shepherded into a different weapon-- if there are so many of one weapon and not enough of another, and the freshman is good enough so that they should get to fence occationally, weapon switches are not at all unusual.....

[C.I.C.]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

College coaches want the best fencers.

Of course; that goes without saying.

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

a minimum of 4 for each squad

Ignore my example of 3 fencers per weapon.
Let's say the coach has 6 (or 8 or whatever) on the roster for each weapon: two top performers - always successful, two average performers - 50/50 success, the rest not yet strong enough for Collegiate level successes.
- The two top level epeeists are graduating Seniors.
- Two High School fencers are interested in attending this school:
- one a not-yet-ready-for-Collegiate-level epeeist
- the other a top performer saberist (USFA Junior ranked in top 16)

Would the coach be more interested in the epee to help re-stock the diminished epee roster, or the saber despite the fact that there's already a solid roster for saber?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by C.I.C.

Would the coach be more interested in the epee to help re-stock the diminished epee roster, or the saber despite the fact that there's already a solid roster for saber?

What I'm trying to tell YOU is that, for the most part, college coaches don't need to pick. Unless you're up for one of the VERY few fencing scholarships in the country (and I believe that that number is under 10, with some being split into partials-- the number 6 is popping to mind, but I could be wrong), if a coach thinks you'll benefit the team, you'll be just as recruited as anyone else of your skill level, regardless of the current roster.

The number of coaches that actually have institutions that give out scholarships is so small that I would imagine there isn't a well known discernible pattern--- I haven't made a study of it-- I didn't want to go to an NCAA school-- But I would imagine that the concerns change so much from year to year that even people on the team couldn't tell you who has the best shot at a scholarship.


Furthermore, you're the fencer you are. Presumably you can only be as good as you are in the next couple of months, presumably you have already found a weapon you're reasonably good in, and presumably you can't actually change who's graduating. So why does it matter?

Finally------- You've now created three threads, all of which could reasonably be put into one, and you'd get better responses that way. And Anyway, you've failed to ask any of the important questions. You can do some searches (yeah, the search function is a little weird to navigate, try anyway) on college fencing, and you'll get some good info.



Here are a few of the answers I think you'll eventually care about:

Fencing will not get you into a school the way Football will. This might be untrue if you're currently fencing World Cups. Other than that, fencing is just as good as debate club--- cool, interesting, but you're gonna need more than that. Sometimes NCAA coaches have minimal influence on admissions, but even their vote of highest confidence won't get you into a school you don't have the grades, scores, or activities to get into without the fencing. The influence they have might change from year to year due to college polititcs. Even if it was an influence last year, you can't count on it 100%.

There are a number of great programs in this country at all levels, and not quite enough experienced high school fencers for all of them. Some are better than others, but there exists more than one good program at your level, almost regardless of what your level is. Sure you want a program where you'll learn a lot, but you also want a program where you'll get to compete. You might not be able to predict this or control this. If you're on an NCAA team, it will feel like a job a lot of the time, depending on the team you're on. make sure you like the coach, make sure you like the team. You'll be spending a lot of time with them, so don't find yourself with people you hate.


You actually have to go to college at the place that has your team of choice. Don't pick a school you'll be miserable at just because of the fencing-- you spend more time not fencing than fencing. If you hate the school, sometimes you start to hate fencing too, and then you have nothing going right. This may mean going to a school with a program strong enough you only compete junior and senior year, or this might mean going to a school where you're the big fish in the small pond because you found a really good school. That has to be okay-- not ideal, but okay--- because it might be in your best interest to settle for not ideal.


{Edit}Looking on back on your post, I'll answer what might have been your question: College coaches will not give athletic scholarships to people who don't have results. There are few enough scholarships in this country so that they don't need to give money to people who don't have results, because if they have the scholarship to give, they can get one of the people with the results. They might talk to admissions about someone who isn't a 100% known quantity but who will potentially help them out, they will not offer athletic money.

[C.I.C.]

Thanks for effort and the lengthy response, but...

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

What I'm trying to tell YOU is that, for the most part, college coaches don't need to pick.

Please note I said "the coach's preference" and "be more inclined to recruit." Not who would be picked.

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

Unless you're up for one of the VERY few fencing scholarships in the country... The number of coaches that actually have institutions that give out scholarships is so small that...

I did not say anything about scholarships; wasn't addressing them in any way.

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

Furthermore, you're the fencer you are. Presumably you can only be as good as you are in the next couple of months, presumably you have already found a weapon you're reasonably good in, and presumably you can't actually change who's graduating. So why does it matter?

I think you're incorrectly assuming I'm asking this question as someone who's about to apply to college, and that's what prompted your long response. I am not.

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

You've now created three threads, all of which could reasonably be put into one, and you'd get better responses that way.

I had three distinct questions, not that closely related. Single questions often get "hijacked" here before any reasonable responses have been received. A three part posting would be three times as likely to go astray.

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

And Anyway, you've failed to ask any of the important questions.

You've made assumptions and missed what I actually asked, so I don't think you can honestly say this.

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

if a coach thinks you'll benefit the team, you'll be just as recruited as anyone else of your skill level, regardless of the current roster.

This is as close as you got to what I was looking for.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by C.I.C.

Thanks for effort and the lengthy response, but...

Please note I said "the coach's preference" and "be more inclined to recruit." Not who would be picked.

I did not mean what PEOPLE would be picked, which was VERY clear in context. What I meant was "a college coach does not need to choose a limited number of people to recruit, the college coach will feel very free to talk to the experience person in one weapon and the inexperience person in the weapon they need more"

Originally Posted by C.I.C.

I did not say anything about scholarships; wasn't addressing them in any way.

That is the only senario in which a college coach is really forced into a senario of which fencer to heavily recruit, so it seems that if this is some sort of weird hypothetical, including scholarships is the only way to get some sort of meaningful answer.




But, clearly I'm dumb. So what exactly do you want to know??? What I would do in your rediculous hypothetical if I were a coach? What my coach would do? What the Brown coach would do? Harvard? A statistical sample of NCAA coaches?

Perhaps people aren't giving you the answers you want because you're not asking questions you we can reasonably expected to answer, since, as far as I can remember off the top of my head, there is exactly one NCAA coach on this messageboard?

Originally Posted by C.I.C.

I think you're incorrectly assuming I'm asking this question as someone who's about to apply to college, and that's what prompted your long response. I am not.

Yes, I made an assumption. I made this assumption based on the fact that every thread about college fencing I remember has been made by a prospective college student or said student's parents. So yes, wrong, however, I think most would agree it's a fairly easy mistake to make.

Originally Posted by C.I.C.

I had three distinct questions, not that closely related. Single questions often get "hijacked" here before any reasonable responses have been received. A three part posting would be three times as likely to go astray.

To those of us who have been on the board for a while, most questions that are in the realm of "college fencing" can be placed in one thread, and the more threads that someone makes on a very similar topic (maybe not to you, but to many on these boards, they are VERY similar topics), people become less and less interested in reading them, and sometimes get belligerant. I know for a fact that I am not the only person who has thought that perhaps your three threads could be combined into one since someone else has mentioned this to you. You've joined, what, a maximum of three days ago? You'll find that on this messageboard, we usually wait for the people who are most likly to have an answer to offer it--- once that has happened, THEN we perpetrate threadjack.


I would like to point out that in every instance you've posted something, you received a fairly prompt and useful response- In this thread, you seemed to have breezed past any of my attempts to answer your questions, since i have tried to read into it any way i can and have obviously failed you, perhaps you should rephrase, with everything you do and don't want us to keep in mind. Because I don't think other people will be better mind readers than me.

For the Cornell thread, I gave you some information, which you seemed to ignore to point out that the men's team's webpage is down, which is hardly under the control of anyone on this site. I assume it will be up at some point soon, until then, I suggest you google Cornell fencing, and look at the cached pages.

As to the Ivy league thread? Maybe If you tried being a little less insulting, you would get a bit farther.



But perhaps this is the internet, and the way you actually meant your posts is not nearly as pointedly offensive as I'm kind of assuming they are. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt-- you are, after all, new to the community.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by C.I.C.

Generally, do college teams try to maintain their roster size; replacing in-kind the Seniors who have graduated with the same gender/weapon, or is it more likely that the rosters will vary from year-to-year driven by the gender/weapon of the incoming Freshman who've selected their school?

You're not asking an either/or question. You've phrased it as such, but it's just two yes or no questions stuck together. The answer to both is yes. College teams attempt to maintain their rosters. College teams also vary based on incoming freshmen who select that school.

What I'm looking for is the coach's preference, not what they may, in reality, have to settle for.

Coaches want the 1, 2, 3 and 4 internationally ranked fencers in every weapon. They also want a big salary.

For example; will a coach who currently has 3 fencers in each gender/weapon be more inclined to recruit a moderatly skilled Freshman of the same weapon as a graduating Senior (a men's epee for departing men's epee), or will the coach choose to recruit a very strong potential Freshman regardless of departures of Seniors (very strong men's sabre, to add the the 3 on the team already, leaving men's epee at just 2)?

Again, that's not an either/or question. Think about what you're asking. If the Packers had no quarterback and a bunch of linebackers, do you think they would spring for an average quarterback or a phenomenal linebacker? They'd try to get both, but it's more important to fill empty slots.

Also, you're asking bad questions and getting mad when people give you answers you didn't want. Quit being such a prick about it and people might be a little more cooperative.

[C.I.C.]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

So what exactly do you want to know??? What I would do in your rediculous hypothetical if I were a coach? What my coach would do? What the Brown coach would do? Harvard? A statistical sample of NCAA coaches?

Woof! Let's try this again.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, ON AVERAGE would MOST college coaches prioritize their recruiting efforts on:
1. Maintaining their roster numbers to ensure they have the numerical depth in each weapon (replacing the graduating Seniors with the best same weapon/gender fencers that make themselves available to the coach)
2. Acquiring the most talented fencers irrespective of weapon/gender (even if their roster consequently becomes thin in a specific weapon/gender)

"Our saber and foil squads are strong for next season, but when Mr. A and Mr. B graduate this spring, our epee squad will suffer greatly.
1. Let's concentrate on replenishing our epee squad as best we can with those epeeists interested in our school.
2. High School Junior saber star Mr. C is very interested in our school. Even though our saber squad is already very strong, let's concentrate on acquiring Mr. C for our saber squad, and let our epee squad's numbers be depleted."

I didn't expect that one person would have the definitive answer here, just that folks who had a fair number of years experience with such things might contribute what they had experienced and seen.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

Coaches want the 1, 2, 3 and 4 internationally ranked fencers in every weapon. They also want a big salary.

If I were the college coach of a top NCAA school (HAH!) I would want 2,3,4, and 5 internationally ranked fencers in every weapon.

More of a drive to compete that way. "None of you in this room are the best fencers in the world. Don't you want to be?" .................. Of course, the people on my team would be changing on a fairly regular basis, which could get awkward with the whole "college classes" thing.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by C.I.C.

Woof! Let's try this again.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, ON AVERAGE would MOST college coaches prioritize their recruiting efforts on:
1. Maintaining their roster numbers to ensure they have the numerical depth in each weapon (replacing the graduating Seniors with the best same weapon/gender fencers that make themselves available to the coach)
2. Acquiring the most talented fencers irrespective of weapon/gender (even if their roster consequently becomes thin in a specific weapon/gender)

"Our saber and foil squads are strong for next season, but when Mr. A and Mr. B graduate this spring, our epee squad will suffer greatly.
1. Let's concentrate on replenishing our epee squad as best we can with those epeeists interested in our school.
2. High School Junior saber star Mr. C is very interested in our school. Even though our saber squad is already very strong, let's concentrate on acquiring Mr. C for our saber squad, and let our epee squad's numbers be depleted."

I didn't expect that one person would have the definitive answer here, just that folks who had a fair number of years experience with such things might contribute what they had experienced and seen.

Still not an answerable question, since you've ignored the points made by erooMynohtnA.

Depending on the team, this is either not a yes or no question (in the case of all of the better NCAA teams) or not a question at all--- for example, the Smith team (a club team, for the record) really needs foilists or epeeists, depending on the year, and we would love to specifically concentrate on acquiring some of them, but we lack any serious way to do that.

[erooMynohtnA]

GENERALLY SPEAKING, ON AVERAGE would MOST college coaches prioritize their recruiting efforts on:
1. Maintaining their roster numbers to ensure they have the numerical depth in each weapon (replacing the graduating Seniors with the best same weapon/gender fencers that make themselves available to the coach)
2. Acquiring the most talented fencers irrespective of weapon/gender (even if their roster consequently becomes thin in a specific weapon/gender)

GENERALLY SPEAKING, ON AVERAGE would MOST college coaches priotize their shopping efforts on:
1. Maintaining their food supply to ensure they have the caloric depth in each foodgroup (replacing the stuff they ate to make sure they have a balanced diet)
2. Acquiring the best tasting food irrespective of FDA food pyramids (even if they run a little low on milk which they really like with that one cereal, you know, the one with marshmallows in the shape of circles, but sometimes a little bit oval--and that one time there was a big clump of them in there--so they'll have to get a bagel or something on Tuesday morning instead)

I didn't expect that one person would have the definitive answer here, just that folks who had a fair number of years experience with such things might contribute what they had experienced and seen.

Just PM oiuyt. Maybe he'll deal with you.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

Just PM oiuyt. Maybe he'll deal with you.

There will be either a helpful, informative response, OR a snarky response, OR both.


Usually one of the last two

[keropie]

Realistically speaking, there aren't enough NCAA programs to have a statistically meaningful response. And most club coaches don't recruit, as they generally don't have recruiting power.

The big schools probably try to keep their rosters (weapon specific) filled as best they can. Most smaller teams are just looking for as high quality fencers as they can, but would use weapon preference more as a tie breaker.

Some coaches look for quality people above all else.

Some pick names out of a hat, or the phone book. Ok, I actually made that up...

But it varies a lot from coach to coach. I'd guess that if a coach were in a situation in which his team was competitive for NCAA championships and such, he/she would rather keep the rosters full, assuming a comparable fencer. I mean, if there aren't any decent foilists available, I'd expect they'd take their 5th saber fencer before just grabbing some guy who knows how to hold a foil.

[oiuyt]

Ignoring most of the discussion, I'll just address what we, at Temple, do.

A bit of background. We're a women's-only D1 NCAA program with a full allocation of scholarship money available (5 full equivalents (tuition, room, board, books, fees) which we then split up to cover more than 5 people).

In any given year we prioritize based on where we have the largest gaps -- either through graduation or just where we're most in need of a top person. This focuses some of who we're looking at most actively and where we're most likely to allocate scholarship monies. We are, however, always looking at good fencers in all three weapons.

We aim to keep a balance in squad size as well as keep relatively close to a target team size, as this is what fits our resources -- competitive strip time, practice space, lesson time, etc. We do have fencers switch weapons at times in order to improve upon those balances, or to move fencers to a squad where they will have a better opportunity to succeed.

While it hasn't been addressed yet here, fencing-specific skills/results are far from the only criteria that we use when selecting which people to pursue. Much as MP pointed out that fencers should be picking their college of chocie on more than just the fencing team, we, as coaches and as a team, are going to be spending hundreds of hours with anyone that joins. We want people that we're going to like, that are going to fit in well with our program, with whom we're going to enjoy working, and that are going to enjoy working with us.

But to go back to the initial question, it is common that recruiting will be targetted at replacing seniors. If for no other reason than because filling gaps is more important than stockpiling excess talent. Of course it's rare that a team will be perfectly balanced prior to the effects of graduation, so other factors can play at least as large a role. Graduation plays into this equation in two different ways, however. First, obviously, through graduation people are leaving the team, opening the position that they previously held. Secondly, those that graduate also account for the scholarship monies that open up. A team with lots of people with large grants graduating will have more to play with in the recruiting arena. Then again, presumably they also have more holes that desparately need plugging.

-B

[C.I.C.]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

In any given year we prioritize based on where we have the largest gaps -- either through graduation or just where we're most in need of a top person.
-B

Oiuyt, thank you. Your response was just the type of information I was looking for.

[trazom]

Not to mention, its not unheard of for a fencer to be asked to switch weapons if there was a need. You may primarily be a sabre fencer, but, the sabre squad is stacked and there's a dearth of epee fencers. You're #6 on the sabre squad, but, you'd be #2 on the epee squad.

You'll be fencing epee. Even though you REALLY LOVE sabre.