USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #7: Growth of Fencing within the US

[tchwojko]

Any thoughts from the Fencers For Change?

[whtouche]

Seriously though collegiate club fencing is growing nationally, NCAA is shrinking, and there are significant advantages to being a club as opposed to NCAA, for instance for all of the USACFC problems I think it does a better job with championships then the NCAA.

"Significant" advantages to being a club rather than varsity collegiate program? Name some. Name ONE "advantage" that you consider "significant". Having fenced for a club team for the past four years, and having regular interactions and conversations with fencers from varsity programs, I can't think of any advantage that I would consider significant; I can't even really think of any advantages off the top of my head.

And if you want to make the argument that the tournament format for USACFC (which changes year to year and sometimes day to day, often unilaterally without any sort of vote) is better than the NCAA championship format, I won't even argue that much. But I think this "advantage" is then mitigated by how poorly, poorly, poorly run USACFCs is, every year. And how resistant the leadership of the USACFC to do basic, common sense things which would make the tournament better.

True club fencing is growing, but to characterize the world that collegiate club teams exist in as superior to, or even remotely on par with the existence of a collegiate varsity team is a laughably gross mis-characterization of reality.

And I think that more club fencers continue on after college then varsity.

This is, what? Anecdotal evidence based on your close connection with club fencers and I assume much less experience with varsity fencers.
I'm not saying this isn't true, but I (and I assume you) don't Know it to be true. And even if it is true, there are many logical reasons for it, none of them support the characterization of club fencing as superior to varsity fencing.

[T]

Any thoughts from the Fencers For Change?

My word...I'm gone for 6 or 8 hours and you think I have abandoned you? Did you miss me?

I wish I had a juicey excuse but I don't. Today was graduation for all of my seniors at school and professors well.. have to profess and congratulate them for all of their hard work. Do I need to get a permission slip next time to be absent from f.net for so long??

To answer the question...lots of thoughts but it will have to wait until after dinner. Stay tuned...

[seak]

"Significant" advantages to being a club rather than varsity collegiate program? Name some. Name ONE "advantage" that you consider "significant". Having fenced for a club team for the past four years, and having regular interactions and conversations with fencers from varsity programs, I can't think of any advantage that I would consider significant; I can't even really think of any advantages off the top of my head.

And if you want to make the argument that the tournament format for USACFC (which changes year to year and sometimes day to day, often unilaterally without any sort of vote) is better than the NCAA championship format, I won't even argue that much. But I think this "advantage" is then mitigated by how poorly, poorly, poorly run USACFCs is, every year. And how resistant the leadership of the USACFC to do basic, common sense things which would make the tournament better.

True club fencing is growing, but to characterize the world that collegiate club teams exist in as superior to, or even remotely on par with the existence of a collegiate varsity team is a laughably gross mis-characterization of reality.

The first advantage I think clubs has, is that they can afford the time to teach new people how to fence and introduce them to the sport. Some varsity teams do this, but it's clearly more part of clubs.

Also I'd say that not having to deal with the NCAA and their rather draconian rules and requirements is a significant advantage. Yes club AD types can be a pain, but they don't tend to limited your job choices, or hold up your fencing eligibility.

Most clubs also don't have strict rules on drinking, or make you wake up at 6am for workouts the day after Halloween, and threaten breathalysers at said workout.

There's more flexibility if you have a hard semester, or want to go abroad, you generally don't have to worry as much about scheduling classes around practice.

In general I think the amount of flexibility that club teams have, and more importantly club fencers, is a significant advantage.

As to NCAA's vs. USACFC's, USACFC's is a better format it is clearly far more poorly run. But it also provides an opportunity to fence who anyone who can afford it (though clearly regionals will have to happen at some point). In additions to oiuyt's point about NCAA selection breaking down if you have 3 excellent fencers. The NCAA formula hurts you if you fence more bouts (both fence 20 top quality bouts with high win percentage, fencer B also fences 20 low level bouts and fencer B ends up with a higher win percentage, they'll be seeded lower), and hurts fencers who do nothing but win, but don't have as many high level bouts, as someone with a lower win percentage.

This is, what? Anecdotal evidence based on your close connection with club fencers and I assume much less experience with varsity fencers.
I'm not saying this isn't true, but I (and I assume you) don't Know it to be true. And even if it is true, there are many logical reasons for it, none of them support the characterization of club fencing as superior to varsity fencing.

Yes this is based on anecdotal evidence, but it's evidence collected over 4 different divisions, at least one or two NAC's, and the frequent complaints from people on this board about high level fencers not continuing on.

Really people on NCAA teams (that I've talked to) seem to think clubs have it better/easier (although most of them still prefer NCAA) and people on club teams think NCAA teams have it better (though some of them don't want to be NCAA). I just think you lose something if you concentrate solely on making more teams varsity, as opposed to trying to strengthen both club and NCAA.

Both sides have advantages, NCAA and club. NCAA is better, but it's not a totally one way street.

[epeemike81]

for all of the USACFC problems I think it does a better job with championships then the NCAA.

LMAO!!!!

Thanks, I needed that.

Speaking as somebody who reffed NCAA championships this year and was present for USACFC's (though not reffing, as the person hiring didn't see fit to invite ANY of the strong referees in NE Division), I'd like to express my STRONG disagreement with this.

-m

[seak]

I've been to USACFC's and probably heard waaaaaaay more kvetching about USACFC's then anyone else on this board, and I guess it depends on your definition of better. Also I think USACFC's problems could be fixed with some amount of ease, not so much with NCAA.

[epeemike81]

I've been to USACFC's and probably heard waaaaaaay more kvetching about USACFC's then anyone else on this board, and I guess it depends on your definition of better. Also I think USACFC's problems could be fixed with some amount of ease, not so much with NCAA.

USACFC's problems could be fixed with a shotgun and a deep hole to bury the bodies in.

-m

[telkanuru]

USACFC's problems could be fixed with a shotgun and a deep hole to bury the bodies in.

-m

Two deep holes. And invest in some silver bullets and stakes.

[T]

What plans or ideas do the slates have to promote growth for fencing at divisional levels. What plans or ideas for encouraging NCAA fencing to grow? What about high school fencing? Supporting "recreational clubs" vs. "competitive clubs"? There are still perceptions about fencing as an "elitist sport", how can you combat that thought? Some areas of the country are saturated with clubs and good athletics,still others are sparse. Where do you see the need for growth geographically? How do you plan on making USFA a presence on the local level?

Back on topic...

In other threads, some have argued that the USFA should leave local fencing development to the local clubs. Yes and No. The USFA should not be in the business of running local clubs nor should it be in the business of dictating what programs member clubs offer or how they run their business.

However, the only way that USFA membership levels can grow is through local clubs, high school programs, and collegiate programs. To the extent that this is true (and we think that it is very true), the USFA needs to develop programs that encourage USFA membership. Do we want to promote fencing in general? Yes, but we also want to encourage USFA membership. One way of doing this is with the USFA acting as a clearinghouse of 'club' knowledge about program successes (ie, best practices) that can be disseminated widely to other clubs.

In our view of an organizational structure a Membership & Customer Services Officer will be responsible for ensuring that clubs, coaches, divisions, and sections have the support they need to help grow local, non-elite athlete programs. This paid staff position will use the Coach's committee (volunteers) as an 'expert' resource in terms of ideas, programs, and activities that can be developed, promoted and/or replicated by the USFA to its member clubs with the intention of helping local clubs attract, maintain, and develop USFA members.

Some clubs may choose not to participate in these programs and that is ok, this would not be a mandated program. Instead, it would be a resource that clubs could utilize if desired.

Many college and high school fencers are not USFA members primarily because there is little incentive for them to become members. If the USFA sanctioned high school and club collegiate fencing tournaments and provide awards and/or small grants (such as NAC or JO entry fees or club dues, equipment, recognition awards, etc.) as well as develop close relationships with successful coaches in these programs, the USFA could replicate these programs in other parts of the country. Once we have documented our successful high school, collegiate, and club models we can creatively and successfully build our membership base and our talent pool of fencers while promoting the sport as a life-long activity.

Geographic expansion of the number of fencing clubs will help the USFA build our membership base. Certain parts of the country don't have any problem in this area but the middle parts of the country have vast areas that have a relatively small fencing population. If we look at the demographis of our current membership base and match that to cities' demographics (similar to what Wal-Mart and McDonalds and many other corporations do), we can identify markets that can support an active fencing club or more. By identifying these potential markets, entrepreneurial coaches or club owners can take this information, along with a template business and marketing plan, and customize it to that specific market or demographic base and to their individual interest/strengths. Ultimately, the USFA can provide useful information to coaches or potential club owners to help them start a fencing salle either in their own city or in a completely different one.

Our biggest potential for collegiate fencing are the club fencing programs but we also need to develop a collaborative effort between the USFA and the NCAA programs. Unfortunately, the NCAA national championships are a highly selective (although the best fencers are not necessarily the ones that are selected because of the 2 fencers/weapon max limit). I would like to see the NCAA adopt a team format for the NCAA championships. If teams were recognized as such, the focus would be to promote more schools to develop NCAA programs. Currently, if you don't have scholarship athletes (or the possibility of attracting talented athletes to Ivy league status), your team doesn't have much of a chance of winning a title so why would a current non-NCAA team want to convert? This problem might be resolved if there was a national championships for Div II and/or III NCAA fencing programs --lessoning further the impact of scholarship athletes on the team results.

[Wafath]

A few thoughts on Collegiate Club Fencing & the USFA:

I am not sure how involved the USFA should be with collegiate club fencing. By necessity and scarcity of resources, the USFA's primary focus should be on the things that nothing else is in a position to implement as well: NACs, US World Cup & Olympic representation, etc.

But should the new administration choose to pay special attention to collegiate fencing, there are a few things that they may wish to consider (ranked roughly from the trivial to the the absurd.)

Trivial:

- Fix the listing of "Other Colleges and Universities" on usfencing.org. Right now it stops in the O's, leaving an unknown number of schools unlisted. (Yes, I have asked the USFA to fix it. I gave up and worked on the fencing.net wiki instead.)

- Encourage an article or two in American Fencing about "The Other Collegiate Fencing Experience".

- Encourage clubs, club associations & conferences to offer fliers at summer nationals.

Less Trivial:

- Change how clubs register their membership for the USFA. Ask clubs to self-identify the nature of the club. The USFA could simply display this information on their web page (and allow users to sort, etc). Some simple categories: Elite Club, Competitive Club, Recreational Club, Competitive Collegiate Club, Recreational Collegiate Club, Varsity Team.

- Set up a mentoring service for new and newly struggling collegiate clubs. The USFA could simply maintain a list of coaches, clubs, refs & orgs that are willing to help, and connect the mentee w/ the best matching mentor.

- Disseminate information on how to run collegiate meets, how to structure conferences, etc. Encourage the formation of conferences in areas of the country that there are none.

Difficult:

- The USFA should develop some organizational knowledge about Collegiate Sports, and how college administrations view them. Club sports are not varsity with less rules, nor are they private clubs restricted to college students, nor are they high-school fencing. They are an entity of their own, and have their own rules and their own philosophy. I feel there is a vast about of misconception in the USFA about them, even by people who have been doing it for many years.

Should the USFA choose to spend resources on collegiate club fencing, they need to research it. May college sport clubs organizations operate from a common philosophy and rules set, and these rules are not always what is best for fencing. Learning about the system is the first step to both changing it & teaching our members how to navigate it to our mutual advantage.

- Secure funding for collegiate club fencing, either as equipment grants, membership grants, training scholarships, or funding to collegiate club fencing orgs.

- consider changing the rules on how rankings are given, and allow collegiate meets to offer USFA rankings. (This wouldn't help collegiate club fencing so much as it might help promote USFA membership to more collegiate fencers.)

Absurd: (presented for the sake of argument only. I'm calling it absurd for a reason, OK?)

- Involve itself in collegiate scheduling, to allow college clubs (and weaker varsity teams) to get a decent and appropriate schedule.

As part of that they would have to:

- Somehow modify the NCAA ranking method.
- Standardize the various conferences, establish rules & conduct.
(It might help if the USFA could obtain compromising photos of all collegiate fencing coaches & ADs)

also, they could:

- adopt club & NCAA championships, incorporate them into the NACs or just run them as their own event. Effectively, seize control of both of them, control the rules for qualification, format, etc, and run them as they "should".

--------

As I have said above, I think the new administration will be busy enough with the areas of fencing that should be USFA's core competency that it may never get to collegiate clubs, and I would neither be upset nor surprised.

(DISCLAIMER: I present these thoughts only as the ramblings of a cantankerous observer. Do not interpret these views to be that of any organization or entity that you mistakenly believe I represent, especially that of myself, as I have not been authorized to speak for any of them on this subject. Also, please do not view these comments as being for, against, or perpendicular to any candidate for any office anywhere at any time. I am merely presenting these for public digestion & deconstruction, and because it appears that whomever might be leading the USFA in the near future will have read this.)

W

[Snowbabe]

We do have a model to follow for growing High School Fencing-New Jersey. There are now 52 High school fencing programs. Twenty years ago, there were about 25. It is fine and well that we want all high schoolers that fence to become USFA members but that is not going to fly with many Athletic Directors or the NJSIAA(the state HS sports Association). Fencing is treated just like any other HS sport. Membership in the national organization is not required in other sports so it won't be for fencing.There are many NJ fencers that do fence outside of the 3 months of the high school season. There are just as many that don't and like it that way. Coaches already encourage fencers to fence outside of the high school season but can not mandate it. Many of these kids may not be able to afford it both financially and timewise. Also, we have to deal with the state highschool athletic associations. They would not allow us to have their tournaments or meets sanctioned by the USFA. These associations are in charge of all high school sports.

Upon looking at the committee list, we do have a high school and collegiate committee, I just think not much has been asked of them. I think that this committee is more of an advisory group.

[T]

We do have a model to follow for growing High School Fencing-New Jersey.

Yes, a model that should be replicated in other parts of the country!

Upon looking at the committee list, we do have a high school and collegiate committee, I just think not much has been asked of them. I think that this committee is more of an advisory group.

Yes, an advisory group - but advising who? This goes back to my point about a professional staff running program as opposed to volunteers. When you have a committee in charge of implementing program, few programs get implemented. Mostly, the programs that get implemented are pet projects of people who are on the committee. There needs to be a paid staff person that is responsible for disseminating info about this and other model programs for other clubs/areas that would be interested in implementing it in their area.

[telkanuru]

Yes, a model that should be replicated in other parts of the country!

Not all aspects of it, please.