USACFC Constitution Changes

[Wafath]

I would like to propose some changes to the USACFC constitution. Before I send them off to the president, I wanted to let others peck at them, and suggest changes as you see fit. Also, if you wanted to propose changes to the USACFC constitution, it would appear that they are due in the next day or two.

Some of these changes are controversial, but others are just to reflect the current reality.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by Wafath

I would like to propose some changes to the USACFC constitution. Before I send them off to the president, I wanted to let others peck at them, and suggest changes as you see fit. Also, if you wanted to propose changes to the USACFC constitution, it would appear that they are due in the next day or two.

Some of these changes are controversial, but others are just to reflect the current reality.

I don't know about #10. Coaches can discuss things with their students if they want a student opinion. If they're not going to make the effort to engage in conversation with their own club, I doubt they'll listen to an assigned student rep.

Conversely, if the officers assign too much value to what the student representative says, they're just getting a narrow view that might not represent the various viewpoints or even the majority opinion.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

I don't know about #10. Coaches can discuss things with their students if they want a student opinion. If they're not going to make the effort to engage in conversation with their own club, I doubt they'll listen to an assigned student rep.

Conversely, if the officers assign too much value to what the student representative says, they're just getting a narrow view that might not represent the various viewpoints or even the majority opinion.

By the same token Administrators and Coaches can talk to athletes in non-collegiate settings as well.

The USOC still requires all NGBs to have a minimum of 20% athlete representation in their governing bodies. That portion of the proposal merely matches the USACFC to what more professional/structured organizations in the same field already do.

Speaking as someone who sits on the Board of Directors for USFencing, the viewpoints presented by the Athlete Reps there is frequently different than those expressed by the rest of the members. It is very useful to have this different perspective. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for there to be an athlete voice guaranteed the right to be in the discussions at the highest level.

-B

[reawl]

Re: #8

Why limit it to 4 year programs? What about community colleges? I know University of Cincinnati Clermont is probably one such example of a club that could potentially participate, but doesn't necessarily conform to the 4-year program.

And though I don't see it happening, what if an online college program did organize a fencing club? Is there a specific reason for disallowing their participation?

[RevJonathan]

Can't we add to this amendment that should a format not be reached, the President of the Association can make the format? That way, this year's format will be allowed.

[erooMynohtnA]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

By the same token Administrators and Coaches can talk to athletes in non-collegiate settings as well.

The USOC still requires all NGBs to have a minimum of 20% athlete representation in their governing bodies. That portion of the proposal merely matches the USACFC to what more professional/structured organizations in the same field already do.

Speaking as someone who sits on the Board of Directors for USFencing, the viewpoints presented by the Athlete Reps there is frequently different than those expressed by the rest of the members. It is very useful to have this different perspective. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for there to be an athlete voice guaranteed the right to be in the discussions at the highest level.

-B

Point taken. Obviously you have a lot more experience with sports administration (and most everything related to fencing). Perhaps I'm being shortsighted, but it just doesn't seem necessary, or even useful, at this stage.

[Wafath]

#10: I have mixed feelings about this one, but I think it might be a worthwhile experiment, and not one likely to do much harm. Someone else suggested it to me, and I figured it would be easier to lump it in with the rest.

#8: This pretty much defines what I think a college is when I say I want to do collegiate fencing. Community college fencing clubs are sometimes a conventional fencing club that happens to meet at a community college. I don't have anything against this personally, but my team of college students shouldn't be fencing a group of 30-40 & 10 somethings, and calling it collegiate competition.

As far as online schools... you have to meet somewhere physically to do fencing. If you are a bunch of people who met online, through whatever means, and meet solely to fence, is it a "college club" or just a club?

Maybe #8 is trying to solve problems that don't exist. It does help prevent someone from creating a stacked team on a whim.

Anyway, I contend that all ten of these are worthy of debate and consideration. If anyone wants to offer some better wording, please speak up. I will probably file them this afternoon.

W

[MyrddinsPrecint]

If Bruce Capin sent me the email he did where he hit the caps lock key by accident and didn't realize what he was doing...... maybe #10 isn't terribly important at this juncture.

If Bruce Capin sent me the email he did fully intending to do what he did, we need a student rep a couple years ago.


I think they all make sense.

[campb1pr]

Not having read the original constitution, or being part of the USACFC (yet), what I have to offer is of limited help, but in regards to the brief discussion of your proposal #8, I would suggest the following change:

"8) Change (under Definition of Terms) from:

College, school or institution: The college or university that the athletes represent.

To:

College, school or institution: The institution, being an accredited degree-granting institution of higher education with a physical campus inside the United States and/or Territories, which the athletes represent."

The reasoning being that as reawl mentioned, some non-four year schools do have legitimate clubs. What prevents the situation of a regular club meeting at a community college sending a team is your proposal #9 - requiring full time student status. There are TONS of non-traditional students out there, and they deserve the chance to participate in the traditional student activities, whether they are at a four or two year school. There are stories each year of non-traditional student participating in NCAA sports. (One year a mother and daughter competed as part of the same tennis team at a D-III school.) If a two year school (community college or junior college) has a club made up of full time students, I don't think you would object to their joining, right? I am guessing you were just looking to make sure that people don't game the system when it comes to competing, right?

On that note - does the USACFC have a procedure in place for limits on the number of years that a student-athlete may compete? As in the NCAA four years of eligibility in the first five years since full time enrollment?

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by campb1pr

On that note - does the USACFC have a procedure in place for limits on the number of years that a student-athlete may compete? As in the NCAA four years of eligibility in the first five years since full time enrollment?

Since you are considering non-traditional alternatives, consider dropping "in first five years".

A long time ago I spent 4 years in the navy between my sophomore and junior years of college and fenced both before and after. At an Ivy League school.

Certainly keep the four years of eligibility.

[Wafath]

Originally Posted by campb1pr

If a two year school (community college or junior college) has a club made up of full time students, I don't think you would object to their joining, right? I am guessing you were just looking to make sure that people don't game the system when it comes to competing, right?

Interesting, and you bring up some excellent points. Partially I worry that the full time student change is vulnerable, and the protections that you state disappear if it isn't there.

It may be a better idea to offer two competing amendments, one with your wording, and one with mine, and let the membership vote as they see fit. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

On that note - does the USACFC have a procedure in place for limits on the number of years that a student-athlete may compete? As in the NCAA four years of eligibility in the first five years since full time enrollment?

No it doesn't. It also allows for grad students whom have previously used up all their NCAA eligibility at other institutions, and yes, this does stack some teams.

(In full disclosure mode, I should tell you that UMCP had a grad student who won women's epee last year who previously fenced four years as an undergrad for a varsity fencing team. I feel that someone who feels that they have been harmed by this should mangle the wording of an eligibility rule.)

W

[campb1pr]

Originally Posted by Wafath

Interesting, and you bring up some excellent points. Partially I worry that the full time student change is vulnerable, and the protections that you state disappear if it isn't there.

It may be a better idea to offer two competing amendments, one with your wording, and one with mine, and let the membership vote as they see fit. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

These two changes could be made as one amendment proposal, thus eliminating the fear that one would pass without the other. (Which I understand is a very real fear when discussing a large number of amendments to such a constitution.) I think for your sake (again, speaking as a non-member of the USACFC, but as a person with a bunch of years of experience in collegiate fencing administration, varsity and club), you might not want to propose two amendments to solve the same problem, in that competing amendments might divide your vote, and not get either passed. Making one coherent, cogent and complete amendment to address this one issue, even if it has multiple parts, seems the logical choice.

Originally Posted by Wafath

No it doesn't. It also allows for grad students whom have previously used up all their NCAA eligibility at other institutions, and yes, this does stack some teams.

(In full disclosure mode, I should tell you that UMCP had a grad student who won women's epee last year who previously fenced four years as an undergrad for a varsity fencing team. I feel that someone who feels that they have been harmed by this should mangle the wording of an eligibility rule.)

W

I just asked because I did not know. I should have done a little research (got lazy! ), but I was curious as to the philosophy of the organization in regards to eligibility. Some collegiate club organizing bodies, both in fencing and out, follow NCAA rules in spirit, others are more inclusive. I just didn't know where the USACFC fell.

[IU_Epee]

Originally Posted by Wafath

No it doesn't. It also allows for grad students whom have previously used up all their NCAA eligibility at other institutions, and yes, this does stack some teams.

(In full disclosure mode, I should tell you that UMCP had a grad student who won women's epee last year who previously fenced four years as an undergrad for a varsity fencing team. I feel that someone who feels that they have been harmed by this should mangle the wording of an eligibility rule.)

W

For many collegiate clubs, grad students provide important leadership and experience for the teams. It would harm many teams (Indiana's, for example ^.^) if grad students were not allowed to participate.

Personally, I have no problem with a school having a few grad student "ringers" competing. It increases the level of the competition, which I believe is a good thing.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by IU_Epee

For many collegiate clubs, grad students provide important leadership and experience for the teams. It would harm many teams (Indiana's, for example ^.^) if grad students were not allowed to participate.

Personally, I have no problem with a school having a few grad student "ringers" competing. It increases the level of the competition, which I believe is a good thing.

i think that a reasonable compromise might be found in limiting the entry to matriculated degree-seeking undergrads as well as matriculated degree-seeking graduate students who are under a certain age and have never fenced for a varsity school.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

Originally Posted by noodle

i think that a reasonable compromise might be found in limiting the entry to matriculated degree-seeking undergrads as well as matriculated degree-seeking graduate students who are under a certain age and have never fenced for a varsity school.

I would hate to ammend the constitution to write out former NCAA athletes given the current status of schools, such as Rutgers, that may be able to continue fencing programs as sports clubs after their NCAA status has been pulled.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by TooLoftheDeviL

I would hate to ammend the constitution to write out former NCAA athletes given the current status of schools, such as Rutgers, that may be able to continue fencing programs as sports clubs after their NCAA status has been pulled.

while i agree, there does need to be a clearcut line on that kind of stuff.

[KD5MDK]

Why? Because they're too good compared to the scrubs who make up the rest of USACFC?

[campb1pr]

Originally Posted by IU_Epee

For many collegiate clubs, grad students provide important leadership and experience for the teams. It would harm many teams (Indiana's, for example ^.^) if grad students were not allowed to participate.

Personally, I have no problem with a school having a few grad student "ringers" competing. It increases the level of the competition, which I believe is a good thing.

Originally Posted by noodle

i think that a reasonable compromise might be found in limiting the entry to matriculated degree-seeking undergrads as well as matriculated degree-seeking graduate students who are under a certain age and have never fenced for a varsity school.

Originally Posted by TooLoftheDeviL

I would hate to ammend the constitution to write out former NCAA athletes given the current status of schools, such as Rutgers, that may be able to continue fencing programs as sports clubs after their NCAA status has been pulled.

Originally Posted by noodle

while i agree, there does need to be a clearcut line on that kind of stuff.

Everyone - Go back to OP - There is no mention of limiting eligibility in any fashion.

I merely asked out of curiousity and laziness if there was a rule limiting eligibility beyond being a college student. There isn't, and W is not proposing any such limitation, other than the student must be full-time.

Sorry to create such thread drift unintentionally!