Division funding - club's responsibility?

[seak]

Which does not mean that other fencers, let's say a HS student with really good grades an ability to qualify for JO's and a desire to attend a school without varsity fencing, should miss out on a cash equivalent prize. I'm not convinced that NCAA requirements should count as a ground to dismiss a way of growing the sport.



I stand corrected

Ok, but as Wafath and Oiuyt already pointed out, if that fencer wants to do collegiate fencing at all, even non - varsity, they sort of have to be in compliance with NCAA rules (though obviously clubs don't check that carefully, but in the spirit of fair play....). Hence, even if they don't want to fence varsity they shouldn't take the money. So, the only way they could accept the money is if they didn't want to fence collegiately, and knew this ahead of time.

I think Oiuyt's idea of educating parents and hs students on all college fencing opportunities is a good one, this way they know the rules, and can intelligently choose whether or not to follow them.

[keith]

Ok, but as Wafath and Oiuyt already pointed out, if that fencer wants to do collegiate fencing at all, even non - varsity, they sort of have to be in compliance with NCAA rules (though obviously clubs don't check that carefully, but in the spirit of fair play....). Hence, even if they don't want to fence varsity they shouldn't take the money. So, the only way they could accept the money is if they didn't want to fence collegiately, and knew this ahead of time.

Ah I misunderstood - so I'll go back to saying that is just plain stupid. Or rather it is the tail wagging the dog - and while tails are useful I'm not sure they are that useful.

I think Oiuyt's idea of educating parents and hs students on all college fencing opportunities is a good one, this way they know the rules, and can intelligently choose whether or not to follow them.

Agreed but if the rule is that "Even if you plan on being a club fencer you can't break the rules" then you are in the situation that NCAA rules are effectively USFA rules - not necessarily a good idea (IMHO).

[seak]

Ah I misunderstood - so I'll go back to saying that is just plain stupid. Or rather it is the tail wagging the dog - and while tails are useful I'm not sure they are that useful.



Agreed but if the rule is that "Even if you plan on being a club fencer you can't break the rules" then you are in the situation that NCAA rules are effectively USFA rules - not necessarily a good idea (IMHO).

I think you are confusing collegiate fencing and USFA. You can take all the money you want and still compete in USFA events, but you cannot compete in college tournaments, for that you effectively have to be NCAA eligible. The reason for this is that as Wafath said the NCAA teams provide most of the money/organization and allow the clubs to join in. What they ask in return is that the college clubs don't field fencers who couldn't fence NCAA, in the interest of fair play and to not risk the NCAA fencers eligibility.

(note: college clubs do not necessarily equal USFA clubs, they are comprised of college students, and run by the students at that college)

[oiuyt]

Note that some collegiate conferences DON'T attempt to put NCAA eligibility restrictions on club participants. Others do, but try to specify WHICH requirements are in effect. And yet others assume that clubs just KNOW that their athletes must comply with all NCAA provisions but don't tell the clubs that (or what the provisions are).

I'm sure that there are additional permutations beyond those listed above. The ones above are merely those of which I'm aware and have (relatively) directly encountered.

-B

[erooMynohtnA]

I think you are confusing collegiate fencing and USFA. You can take all the money you want and still compete in USFA events, but you cannot compete in college tournaments, for that you effectively have to be NCAA eligible. The reason for this is that as Wafath said the NCAA teams provide most of the money/organization and allow the clubs to join in. What they ask in return is that the college clubs don't field fencers who couldn't fence NCAA, in the interest of fair play and to not risk the NCAA fencers eligibility.

(note: college clubs do not necessarily equal USFA clubs, they are comprised of college students, and run by the students at that college)

Maybe the college clubs around your area try to satisfy inapplicable NCAA mandates, but I have to say that's totally contrary to my experience.

I've seen schools with one NCAA sex blatantly violate NCAA regulations for their non-NCAA sex, and why not?

I've also seen non-NCAA schools field multiple NCAA ineligible fencers, and why not?

Most collegiate clubs can't compete with NCAA programs. Even top collegiate clubs would be on the low range of mediocre NCAA teams (mediocre in my opinion). In the interest of fair play, maybe I wouldn't entice top international athletes to NCAA schools with scholarships, equipment, and paid travel.

The Wisconsin division had one fencer go to OSU and another go to Notre Dame this year. NCAA eligibility is certainly a concern, and I think Brad's suggestion to educate parents and athletes on NCAA eligibility is a really good one. Even without a clinic (which many would undoubtedly not attend), a caveat attached to the grant (or anything else that may jeopardize NCAA status) would be immensely helpful.

[erooMynohtnA]

Now, to be helpful, rather than merely slightly snarky (it does happen on occasion!)...

4) Subsidize a referee clinic
5) Subsidize a coaching clinic
6) Subsidize a general fencing-parents clinic
7) Establish a program to help new start-up programs (equipment grants or loans, etc.)
8) Trip to the Bahamas for Division Chair
9) Prize-based incentives for club/division growth
10) Acquire additional division-owned tournament equipment

-B

I'm interested in this prize-based incentives for club/division growth. While it may have been tongue in cheek, what sort of prizes are you talking about, what sort of metric for growth would you suggest, and how to make it something other than a giant pissing contest between several top clubs.

[oiuyt]

The USFA used to do this for the clubs that signed the most new members.

There was a prize each quarter, and then for the year. Prizes were something like a pair of fencing shoes.

I think after the USFA discontinued the quarterly program they shifted to a system with some small prize for every 10 new members (a certificate for a free membership?).

A division to which I used to belong ran a contest for which member-club could produce the most referees (take the clinic, pass the written test, earn any referee rating) with engraved swords given to the top three clubs.

I don't have time right now, but hopefully that'll get thoughts started. Come up with a way to measure promotion or growth of the sport. Incentivise it with small prizes and public recognition. It's already in the best interests of the club (more people joining the USFA almost assuredly means more people joining the club and better retention in the club), but small bits of recognition (and competition) can help boost this. It also encourages clubs to encourage their members to join the USFA and then start competing, rather than merely stay as non-members participating only in-house.

What's tricky is figuring out something that makes sense for all (or most) of the division clubs, and not just a prize that's guaranteed to go to the dominant (in size) club, without any competition.

-B

[seak]

Shrug, each college conference has different rules. We play by the rules for whichever conference we're fencing at the time. The 2 Varsity/club conference we belong to, requires that all people fencing in the conference be NCAA eligible.

The club only conferences have laxer rules, in these conferences we have fielded fencers that were not NCAA eligible. This makes sense to me. But given that even if you're not an NCAA fencer you might be joining a club that occasionally can field only NCAA eligible* fencers, it probably makes sense to preserve your eligibility as a high schooler.


*ok really we're a club, if you took illegal payments, there's no way we're going to know, and we don't check GPA academic progress etc. But still potentially endangering someone's NCAA status who is unlikely to know all the details of the rules (because outside of NCAA compliance officers who really does), just seems like bad policy.

[oiuyt]

Incentive system.

Designate a prize (say an iPod Nano). Have a season-long incentive contest where clubs can earn points. Either give the prize to the top points-earner or (my preference as it removes issues with foregone conclusions), count each point as an entry in a random draw for the prize(s).

Things that could earn "incentive points" (and, yes, I WOULD suggest coming up with a better name before trying this) could include:

* A new USFA member - 1 point
* A club member attending an FOC referee clinic (for the first time) - 1 point
* A club member passing the written refereee exam and becoming a rated referee - 2 points
* A club member working as a tournament official (referee, bout committee, armorer) for a division-run tournament - 1 point (or N+ such tournaments for X points) (note that I would NOT include club-run events in this count)
* Whatever other activites you want to encourage people/clubs to do

Jim and the rest of the officers laid out an aggressive strategy of recruitment and club support for the coming year.

Do you have a copy of the aggressive strategy that you can post? Might be interesting to get feedback/comments from more eyeballs, as well as could be useful for other divisions looking for ideas about what to do locally.

-B

[jfarmer]

Originally Posted by Wisconsin Division website
Jim and the rest of the officers laid out an aggressive strategy of recruitment and club support for the coming year.

Do you have a copy of the aggressive strategy that you can post? Might be interesting to get feedback/comments from more eyeballs, as well as could be useful for other divisions looking for ideas about what to do locally.

I will second the request for a copy of this.

They will be a tremendous help to our division in organizing our thinking and planning of future events & activities.

[Chris]

Counter example: USFA refusing to publish results that include the fencers club, because of the extremely small minority of entrants who are NCAA fencers, when the overwhelming majority would like to have them listed.

(sorry - this got a little off-topic...)

This is a misinterpretation of events:
The USFA does NOT refuse to publish this info', it is the NCAA that prohibits athletes representing institutions other than the school, and limits the numbers of events that they can represent in one year. If they were to represent the school in too many events, they could use up their days, and be ineligible for NCAA championships...

Now I think this is a little screwed up, since the number is pretty low, like 11 (I think...), and it is supposedly based on NOT over-taxing the student-athlete, in an attempt to keep them out of academic jeopardy.

Of course this seems to come, mainly, from various problems/scandals in football and basketball programs, and this really doesn't apply to them, so THAT is pretty screwed up!

AFTER the NCAA season in your sport is over, you can represent a club, for USFA purposes, no problem!

NOTE: Colleges/Universities that have VARSITY Fencing TEAMS that want to send students to NCAA Championships are stuck with these issues; I beleive (PLEASE, correct me if I am wrong), that the distinctions of NCAA Div I, Div II, Div III, etc, have to do with more macroscopic program issues (especially stuff like football & basketball - see a trend, here?): For fencing, all fencing is on 1 level, and you are either in it, or not. If you are in it, you are going to have to go through the same hoops! (no pun intended...)

NOTE 2: LOTS and LOTS of colleges and universities have clubs through their Rec' Sports or Activities programs. They are just that - Clubs, and really have nothing to do with NCAA, and nothing to worry about NCAA...It's common that these clubs put together a squad, and go fence team-formats with other clubs, and often, NCAA teams will agree to 'escrimmage' with them as time and schedules permit. Usually this would be in conjuction with the TEAM's official appearance schedule, and (if the results are to be acknowledged as 'official appearances') would not interfere with above mentioned restriction on number of competition days for the team members involved...

[oiuyt]

Chris, your post has several glaring factual errors.

The USFA DOES decline to publish club representation in national results in order to avoid potential issues for NCAA athletes. If the USFA systems were set up in such a way to allow easy changes in whether an athlete is listed as unattached or representing a club AND the athletes were careful about giving the USFA the correct information each time this wouldn't be an issue. Currently I believe neither of these are true. The USFA has come up with their current solution as it makes the problem mostly go away with only the slight downside that a bit less information gets published. Would it be NICE to have club representation listed? Of course. But it's not essential.

The issue is less with representing the school and more with the complete ban on representing any outside organization during the collegiate season. That said, the 11 dates rule does come into play if the athletes were to represent their school. Many collegiate programs DO use official dates for NACs (Temple does).

D1/D2/D3 all have numerous rules differences on both large and small scale. Fencing is conducted at all three levels and they absolutely are not the same.

For fencing, all fencing is on 1 level, and you are either in it, or not. If you are in it, you are going to have to go through the same hoops!

That is simply not true. There are different hoops required for each of the three levels. Different requirements and different opportunities.

The championships are a combined-division championships. That doesn't mean that fencers from Div III schools are Div I athletes or that the programs are Div I programs. They aren't.

-B

[oso97]

The USFA has come up with their current solution as it makes the problem mostly go away with only the slight downside that a bit less information gets published.

Not to mention allows the NCAA fencers to have their cake (no issues about NCAA eligibility due to representations) AND eat it too (derive any possible seeding benefits from club/school conflicts in pools).

[oiuyt]

Not to mention allows the NCAA fencers to have their cake (no issues about NCAA eligibility due to representations) AND eat it too (derive any possible seeding benefits from club/school conflicts in pools).

Yes, but if the USFA is only focused on elite-level competition then that's mostly irrelevant. Fencers seeded by points ranking aren't moved to avoid club conflicts. :)

And you should know that my preference is for the USFA to have improved data management capabilities and then leave the responsibility on the fencers to handle their special circumstances appropriately. I'm fairly certain we've had that conversation. Currently if an athlete takes care to correctly list on each entry form the representation that should hold for a particular event that information appears to be completely discarded at the USFA level.

-B

[Chris]

Chris, your post has several glaring factual errors.

The USFA DOES decline to publish club representation in national results in order to avoid potential issues for NCAA athletes.

Hmmm, I just assumed they were saving space!
Seems to me like sometimes that info' was out there, but maybe I have just been using FRED too much! (reading NON-national results...)

If the USFA systems were set up in such a way to allow easy changes in whether an athlete is listed as unattached or representing a club AND the athletes were careful about giving the USFA the correct information each time this wouldn't be an issue. Currently I believe neither of these are true. The USFA has come up with their current solution as it makes the problem mostly go away with only the slight downside that a bit less information gets published. Would it be NICE to have club representation listed? Of course. But it's not essential.

Well, unfortunately, yes, many coaches & competitors are grossly ignorant of many important policies, and the impact on the fencers' situations...

The issue is less with representing the school and more with the complete ban on representing any outside organization during the collegiate season. That said, the 11 dates rule does come into play if the athletes were to represent their school. Many collegiate programs DO use official dates for NACs (Temple does).

Well, it's partly both - this sounds the same as when I went to college in the 80's...

D1/D2/D3 all have numerous rules differences on both large and small scale. Fencing is conducted at all three levels and they absolutely are not the same.

That is simply not true. There are different hoops required for each of the three levels. Different requirements and different opportunities.

The championships are a combined-division championships. That doesn't mean that fencers from Div III schools are Div I athletes or that the programs are Div I programs. They aren't.

-B

I will defer to you knowledge on this - When I was in school, the only requirements I was really concerned with were my grades, and the school required better grades than the NCAA does - things seemed pretty much the same for the Div 2/3 schools I was aware of - Maybe it's because my Division 1 school treated our program like a stray dog that they couldn't chase away!!!