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

[tdwg83]

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?

[tchwojko]

And what about the current and future relationship with collegiate and high school fencing? Are there things the USFA should be doing, or doing differently?

[telkanuru]

Is developing fencing at the local level the purvue of a NGB? It seems to me this is more of a sectional/divisional concern, especially since the requirements for such will differ vastly by geographic area. IMO, the USFA should be a resource for local growth, but not the guiding force behind it.

[tdwg83]

Is developing fencing at the local level the purvue of a NGB? It seems to me this is more of a sectional/divisional concern, especially since the requirements for such will differ vastly by geographic area. IMO, the USFA should be a resource for local growth, but not the guiding force behind it.

I would suggest that USFA has more resources and the ability to act as a whole with the sections and divisions than they do seperately. I think it is something that the NGB needs to be apart of.

[tchwojko]

Is developing fencing at the local level the purvue of a NGB?

Implementation? No. Strategies and support? Yes.

[telkanuru]

Implementation? No. Strategies and support? Yes.

In government, this tends to be the place where the phrase "unfunded mandate" pops up.

I agree that the USFA needs to be a part of the process, but it need to be the local people coming to them saying "we need you to provide X so we can do Y", rather than any legislative action.

[tchwojko]

In government, this tends to be the place where the phrase "unfunded mandate" pops up.

Are you saying the USFA should be totally uninvolved in encouraging schools to start programs? Or to have resources available to existing programs that want to coordinate things with the USFA? A list of best practices for divisions interacting with schools? A place to find relevant NCAA rules for interacting with student-athletes? A standard set of marketing material to promote fencing in schools, so the divisions don't have to reinvent the wheel when there does seem to be an opportunity for growth?

There's a lot that the national organization can do to help the local level without mandating things. In fact, that was part of my question to the candidates. What should be the role of the USFA with respect to the fencing that happens in the US outside of the USFA's purview? There is a relationship already. How is it doing? Does anything need to change?

[oiuyt]

Is developing fencing at the local level the purvue of a NGB?

Yes.

IMO, the USFA should be a resource for local growth, but not the guiding force behind it.

Exactly.

US Fencing nationally should act to produce and gather existing materials that make it easier for local growth to happen. Rather than have each division and each club reinvent the wheel, we should work to generate materials which can be shared nationally.

Some of this should come from materials produced by initiatives from the national level, but most of it is probably going to be locally-produced materials which are then nationally distributed. US Fencing can act as a clearinghouse aiding in this sharing of knowledge and ideas. There won't be a mandate (funded or otherwise), but when clubs, individuals, or divisions do something well and are willing to share it should be possible.

Addressing the OP, http://usfanominees.com/proposals/scholastic-collegiate contains a brief description of what I'd like to see put into place to help the expansion of high school and collegiate fencing. It's not explicitly mentioned in that paper, but I'd also like to see an effort aimed at talking directly to collegiate athletics departments around the country and determining how receptive they are to the creation of new varsity programs.

This could start with cold calling, but preferably would involve interactions with alumni of the institution that are currently involved with fencing (whether as former fencers, parents of fencers, or current athletes themselves). This process should yield a ranked list of prospective target institutions which can then be worked with moving forwards. By directly engaging the institutions we should also gain a better understanding of what barriers currently exist. Some of those barriers will be difficult for us to clear, but other might be answerable concerns.

You've also asked several other distinct questions in your post:
* What should the USFA be doing to expand local fencing?
* How to support both "Recreational Clubs" and "Competitive Clubs", how to prioritize between the two, or how to differently support the two? (I guess that's three related but separate questions, really)
* How to combat the perception of fencing as an "elitist" sport?
* Where, geographically, should growth be focused?
* How do we propose to make the national organization relevant on the local level?

Rather than just toss out quick answers to each of those, I'm going to take some time to formulate my responses. If I've mischaracterized any of the questions that you were intending to ask, please correct me.

-B

[Mr Epee]

What should be the role of the USFA with respect to the fencing that happens in the US outside of the USFA's purview? There is a relationship already. How is it doing? Does anything need to change?

In Kalle and Brad's NJ Coffee Talk video, Brad (speaking on behalf of the USFA Nominating Committee Candidates) stated that he believed that a paid USFA staff member should be tasked with liaison/coordination duties for non-USFA fencing programs like the NCAA, and NJ High Schools.

It was unclear whether this was an actual position held by the NC, or if Brad was just tossing random happy thoughts to the NJ crowd.

I'm not sure how he envisioned this working. Maybe he's now willing to expound on his idea, and how this would advance the mission/priorities of the USFA.

Currently, none of those organizations require USFA membership. At the time, it struck me as odd that he supported the USFA's expending precious resources (staff time) to serve the needs of non-members... especially with so few member needs being taken care of with the expediency that we have grown to expect at consumers.


--------------------
Edit: See above post... he snuck in a minute before...
--------------------

[seak]

It's not explicitly mentioned in that paper, but I'd also like to see an effort aimed at talking directly to collegiate athletics departments around the country and determining how receptive they are to the creation of new varsity programs.

but, but, but what if we don't want to be varsity?

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

Of course there are advantages to being NCAA too, including funding, prestige and coaching.

[telkanuru]

Of course there are advantages to being NCAA too, including funding, prestige and coaching.

And a halfway-competent tournament system

I know you personally have been trying very hard, but looking at USACFCs over the past several years... yuck.

[Philistine]

{snip}
I'm not sure how he envisioned this working. Maybe he's now willing to expound on his idea, and how this would advance the mission/priorities of the USFA.
{snip}

From the bylaws:

The Purpose of the USFA shall be to:

* * *


6. To organize and supply direction for intercollegiate and interscholastic fencing meets and competitions.

7. To instruct the public and provide general information with respect to the art and sport of fencing and the benefits to be derived from participation therein through lectures and other programs on the subject useful to the individual and beneficial to the community.

8. To disseminate knowledge and basic factual material about the art and sport of fencing.

* * *

10. To establish and promote a nationwide program of fencing competitions.

11. To establish and promote the growth of fencing clubs and salles d'armes throughout the country.

* * *

13. To encourage the art and sport of fencing in the United States of America, its territories and possessions, to define amateur status in respect to fencing and to formulate and enforce regulations relating thereto.

* * *

16. To promote “people-to-people” friendship by maintaining harmonious relations with fencing systems of foreign countries and committees of other organizations interested in promoting international competitions and advancing the sport and art of fencing.

6 in particular, and the others in general seem to cover that....

--Philistine

[seak]

I know you personally have been trying very hard, but looking at USACFCs over the past several years... yuck.

nu-uh don't put that on me, this is wafath's craziness, I just did some beta testing, mostly I ran away to graduate school at a varsity program this year. And after seeing how they compute who goes to NCAA, and looking at their championship format, USACFC's is better (and yes that is very very scary)

[oiuyt]

In Kalle and Brad's NJ Coffee Talk video, Brad (speaking on behalf of the USFA Nominating Committee Candidates) stated that he believed that a paid USFA staff member should be tasked with liaison/coordination duties for non-USFA fencing programs like the NCAA, and NJ High Schools.

It was unclear whether this was an actual position held by the NC, or if Brad was just tossing random happy thoughts to the NJ crowd.

I'm not sure how he envisioned this working. Maybe he's now willing to expound on his idea, and how this would advance the mission/priorities of the USFA.

Currently, none of those organizations require USFA membership. At the time, it struck me as odd that he supported the USFA's expending precious resources (staff time) to serve the needs of non-members... especially with so few member needs being taken care of with the expediency that we have grown to expect at consumers.

Could you help me with a more specific reference?

While it's certainly possible, I'd be fairly surprised if I suggested this should be a staff function. Thinking about it right now it's the type of thing that I'd currently assume should go to a volunteer. Either the chair of a scholastic/collegiate committee or an officer (presumably a VP, although with my connections to collegiate fencing at both club and varsity levels I'd also be a reasonable choice).

That said, how would it expand the mission/priorities of US Fencing? Philistine seems to have already covered that from a technical perspective.

My answer would be more along the lines of how does it NOT help? More fencing, whether directly controlled by US Fencing or not helps us. It expands the opportunities for our athletes. It increases our exposure as a sport to more of the population. It yields additional training and competition opportunities. It keeps people in the sport. It's another source of new fencers. ALL of these are beneficial to our organization.

-B

[Mr Epee]

6 in particular, and the others in general seem to cover that....

--Philistine

Agreed...

Given the incredibly broad description of USFA goals/business provided in the bylaws, one could justify attention to practically anything. Number 11 appears to authorize the USFA to found clubs. Why? I don't know.

I guess my question/concern is more in terms of why #6 and not #11.

What would/could/should this staff person do that isn't already being taken care of by these outside organizations?

Do we have a clear idea of what USFA liasioning will accomplish?

What's the return?

[Wafath]

I know you personally have been trying very hard, but looking at USACFCs over the past several years... yuck.

seak != wafath. Our icons are even different. Can't you tell?

but, but, but what if we don't want to be varsity?

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

Of course there are advantages to being NCAA too, including funding, prestige and coaching.

What the *bleep* are you smoking?

If NCAA champs were anywhere near as messy as USACFC champs, half of the coaches in the country would have a coronary.

NCAA champs serves an entirely different purpose than the USACFC championships. NCAAs serves to select the best varsity collegiate fencers in the country, while USACFC is a fun tournament for clubs with the right combination of funding, organization, proximity and will. Comparing the two is pointless until you acknowledge this.

Does the USACFC do a better job at providing a team format compared to the NCAA? Sure, why not? As has been discussed elsewhere, the NCAA is limited on the number of athletes that may be present at championships. They have what they have as a reasonable compromise.

W

[oiuyt]

Could you help me with a more specific reference?

Okay, I think I found the reference.

Page 2 of the transcript of part 5 of the talk. First and final paragraphs on that page.

I wasn't talking about staff there, but rather a volunteer, as described a couple of posts ago.

-B

[oiuyt]

NCAAs serves to select the best varsity collegiate fencers in the country

In not quite the same way as the Olympics selects the best fencers in the world.

The NCAA does a bit better than the IOC, but it still breaks down when a school has 3 top fencers in a weapon.

-B

[Mr Epee]

Could you help me with a more specific reference?

While it's certainly possible, I'd be fairly surprised if I suggested this should be a staff function. Thinking about it right now it's the type of thing that I'd currently assume should go to a volunteer.

-B

It may have just been a passing thought, but I managed to locate the passage from the transcript...

NJFA_PT_5.pdf (top of page 2)

I think that nationally, yeah, we should have somebody who is looking at the scholastic, both the high school and collegiate level, and is sort of that one of or maybe their main thing. Or maybe that’s one of their portfolio things that they’re responsible for. - Brad Baker

My understanding was that this referred to someone at the National Office.

You may have intended it to be a volunteer... or were just hashing out some thoughts on the fly.

---------edit---------
Brad apparently lives a few minutes in the future, which makes it very difficult for me to communicate coherently... or even answer his questions, before he answers them himself.
----------------------

[Mr Epee]

I wasn't talking about staff there, but rather a volunteer, as described a couple of posts ago.

-B

So more volunteers, more responsibilities, more betterer?

How do you square that with the yesterday's insightful commentary provided by neutral80?