Stanford Fencing on the Chopping Block?

[JEC]

I know an incoming Freshman whose father is fairly vocal on some fencing forums. If enacted, this is an incredible loss for USA fencing. Another team cut just as the youth/cadet numbers are swelling. This is supposed to be an elite school, ... so much hindsight!

[Mr Epee]

Closing the only Div I fencing program in the entire Western half of the U.S. is not only foolish, but ends one of only a handful of our campus programs where the local community and the Stanford body mix all year long. It is a one of a kind program that should be invigorated and supported not cut.

From the athletic department's perspective, these are reasons to cut the program - not keep it. And the idea of self-funding a program in perpetuity is pretty much a non-starter. There's a lot more to funding a program than coaches salaries, equipment, and team travel. There are a multitude of costs that would be extremely difficult to defray. These include program oversight, NCAA compliance, academic support, website costs, facility costs, and probably most importantly the cost of athletic scholarships.

Also, regarding the idea of self-funding, there has been a strong industry trend away from sport specific program level donor solicitation requests towards department level solicitations. This is generally seen as a best-practice, as it ensures a centralized communication model. An athletic department's brand is a valuable commodity, and isn't something that should be put at risk by individual programs within the university.

I challenge the notion that Stanford will experience any noticeable decline in the quality of applicants or graduates due to a lack of fencing programs. Let's be serious.

As the situation currently stands, there are barely enough competitive (read: capable of contending at the highest levels on a regular basis) NCAA fencing programs to comprise a single decent conference. There aren't even enough quality programs to have a top-25 ranking; think about that.

The death knell has been ringing for NCAA fencing programs for quite a while. Ironically, the demise of these programs has been largely at the same time as American fencers have been dramatically improving performances at the world level. However, it should be noted that NCAA programs have had little - if anything - to do with that international success.

In fact, it could be argued that NCAA fencing programs actually hinder the success of the best American athletes. The case being the number of athletes who take off from NCAA participation to prepare for, or participate in international competition.

American fencing has a bright future, but that future is not necessarily dependent on the existence of NCAA fencing programs...

[Tomas N]

In fencing, the NCAA clearly isn't the training grounds for top athletes that it is in football or basketball. I still don't like the idea of dismissing NCAA Div I fencing. Fewer than half of MLB players played in college. MLB would survive quite well without the NCAA. Do we therefore say that college baseball isn't successful? College sports create excitement and generate knowledge of a sport that goes beyond the participants. Having strong NCAA Div I teams also signals that fencing is a real sport, recognized by the athletic powers that be. If we just focus on World Cup and Olympic results, we'll become ever more marginalized.

Tomas

[MdA]

......
Also, regarding the idea of self-funding, there has been a strong industry trend away from sport specific program level donor solicitation requests towards department level solicitations. This is generally seen as a best-practice, as it ensures a centralized communication model. An athletic department's brand is a valuable commodity, and isn't something that should be put at risk by individual programs within the university.
.....

Athletic directors need an incentive to keep their fencing program. As Mr. E notes, donations targeted directly to the varsity fencing program don't seem to work....ref: Rutgers.

The Athletic Directors cup...formerly known as the Sears Cup...provides some incentive since many ADs have their performance objectives tied into these results which totals the results of all NCAA sports.

Stanford has placed well in the Directors cup over the last few years without top team fencing results....so they must figure they can do well without it.

Some colleges like Wayne State seem to have taken another approach. For a small investment....couple scholarships, travel, and some coaching....they bring home a few All Americans and/or an individual championship almost every year.

[campb1pr]

American fencing has a bright future, but that future is not necessarily dependent on the existence of NCAA fencing programs...

MrE - I agree with each of your statements and all your conclusions, even this last one, BUT...

Does that mean that it NCAA fencing is not worth fighting for? You state that fencing at the NCAA level has hindered our best athletes. However, has it hurt the state of fencing in the US as a whole? Has it helped, or is it neutral when it comes to US fencing success (as measured both by international results and by the elusive "increase in popularity")?

My argument is yes, NCAA fencing may be fading, but shouldn't we, as the fencing establishment, be trying to do what we can to stop that? If it isn't actively hurting the larger efforts of fencers in the US to promote the sport, increase our exposure and helping US fencers to better results, then why shouldn't we be striving to save it?

There is a cascade effect in collegiate fencing that I think proves the benefit of an active NCAA program. Stanford is a great example - not only is there a varsity program, but an active club and successful summer camps that would not exist if it weren't for the team. Would the Northwestern Univ. club be as strong if they didn't have a varsity women's team which paid it's coaches? Just two examples, where there are a bunch around. Do you think that some of the very succesful coaches that work at NCAA schools would have been in those smaller communities promoting fencing if they weren't getting paid by the school? And since fencing sees so much competitions between varsity and clubs, don't you think that that raises the level of those club fencers just that little bit? As a former club fencers that fenced in the MACFA conference against a bunch of the D-III east coast teams, we always trained a little harder to compete against the varsity teams, just because it was a ego boost to beat them. I think it improved many of us more than just competing against clubs would have.

Just a couple of reasons that I think that it is important to continue the fight. Yes, to the schools there are a ton of reasonable and even smart reasons to drop varsity fencing, but we need to be creative in proving our worth, beyond the almighty dollar. MrE makes two very salient points in response to Stanford Fencing's offer to become revenue neutral - speaking as a person in higher ed advancement, he's right. One, there are a ton of costs beyond the actual budget that cannot be measured, and two, program specific fundraising is definitely out of favor in the industry, for excellent reasons (unfortunately for us).

Thinking beyond the dollar, what are the benefits to the Stanford community, and the higher education community as a whole, that fencing brings from the varsity level? And which of those cannot be attained with a club program? These are the questions that need to addressed with the Stanford leadership. It's tough, and quite possibly a lost cause if they've already leaked word this far, but definitely worth the fight.

[fdad]

The death knell has been ringing for NCAA fencing programs for quite a while. Ironically, the demise of these programs has been largely at the same time as American fencers have been dramatically improving performances at the world level. However, it should be noted that NCAA programs have had little - if anything - to do with that international success.

In fact, it could be argued that NCAA fencing programs actually hinder the success of the best American athletes. The case being the number of athletes who take off from NCAA participation to prepare for, or participate in international competition.

I agree with you that, once a fencer reaches a certain level, any time spent going to classes and practicing with college team-mates that would otherwise be spent training at a higher level holds them back.

However, I think the mere existance of college programs with potential for preferential admissions and scholarships leads to more kids getting started with fencing. More fencers leads to more good fencers (and of course more bad ones) which eventually leads to better results for the top fencers.

[edew]

I sincerely doubt that kids enter the sport of fencing solely on the anticipation of obtaining a scholarship to a good college. I think in NJ, that may very well be the case. For many other areas, it's a cool sport and after they've succeeded and talked to others, they realize that they can get a scholarship to a good college. Many beginning kids don't even know that fencing is a sport. They think it's self defense or something.

[Wafath]

My argument is yes, NCAA fencing may be fading, but shouldn't we, as the fencing establishment, be trying to do what we can to stop that? If it isn't actively hurting the larger efforts of fencers in the US to promote the sport, increase our exposure and helping US fencers to better results, then why shouldn't we be striving to save it?

Let's stipulate that NCAA Fencing should be saved. What would you suggest we do to save it?

There appears to be a critical density problem; there are not enough varsity programs west of Chicago or south of Durham (or, realistically, south of Philadelphia) to justify keeping programs outside of that area, let alone creating new ones.

This may be the last bad news NCAA fencing faces for a while, but I doubt it. I would consider all programs in the western region to be "at-risk" now, and I think that will make it that much harder to add any new programs outside the core area.

Fencing may or may not be stable in the mid-west, mid-Atlantic and north-east areas.

But if it isn't, what do you suggest we do to preserve it?

If it is, what do you suggest we do to expand it?

W

[oiuyt]

Stanford has placed well in the Directors cup over the last few years without top team fencing results....so they must figure they can do well without it.

Just to place this statement in some additional context...

The Director's Cup has been around for 15 years. The first year Stanford took 2nd (to UNC). They have won it 14 consecutive times since then. They are in the lead to win it again this year.

Fencing certainly contributes (e.g. 9th place this year, 8th place last year), but Stanford would likely win it even punting a sport. The Director's Cup only uses 10 men's teams and 10 women's teams* towards a school's total. If a school scores (makes the post season) in more sports than that, the bottom sports are omitted from the total.

-B

* For Division I. D II looks at 7 and 7, D III at 9 and 9.

Fencing counts only once. It defaults to counting as a women's sport unless a school has 10 or more other women's sports that score points, at which point it can count as a men's sport if that would result in a higher total for the school.

[fdad]

I sincerely doubt that kids enter the sport of fencing solely on the anticipation of obtaining a scholarship to a good college. I think in NJ, that may very well be the case. For many other areas, it's a cool sport and after they've succeeded and talked to others, they realize that they can get a scholarship to a good college. Many beginning kids don't even know that fencing is a sport. They think it's self defense or something.

I am not saying its a good thing, but some of the parents who pay for clubs, lessons, and travel justify it as potentially helping get their kids into good schools. I am sure the kids are motivated by other factors.

[edew]

I know what you're saying. But by then, they're in the sport for keeps.

[gladius]

Just to place this statement in some additional context...

The Director's Cup has been around for 15 years. The first year Stanford took 2nd (to UNC). They have won it 14 consecutive times since then. They are in the lead to win it again this year.

Fencing certainly contributes (e.g. 9th place this year, 8th place last year), but Stanford would likely win it even punting a sport. The Director's Cup only uses 10 men's teams and 10 women's teams* towards a school's total. If a school scores (makes the post season) in more sports than that, the bottom sports are omitted from the total.

-B

* For Division I. D II looks at 7 and 7, D III at 9 and 9.

Fencing counts only once. It defaults to counting as a women's sport unless a school has 10 or more other women's sports that score points, at which point it can count as a men's sport if that would result in a higher total for the school.

Interesting... so did fencing (men's and/or women's) in the past years or does it presently come into the points calculations for the Director's Cup?

[Phrogger]

This is exactly the kind of thing the USFA should be fighting for. Yes, I realize the USFA is overburdened and understaffed. But the lure of scholarships is a powerful motivator for parents to keep their kids fencing, and a growth incentive for the sport. Why not take a few eggs out of the Olympic basket and put them in the College basket? Not everyone will go to the Olympics, for many the NCAA championships is the zenith of achievement.

A representative for NCAA fencing should be appointed if not already. This person would be responsible for meeting regularly with high school and college athletic program administrators, as well as NCAA officials, on how to grow and retain college programs. In other words, a sort of lobbyist. Yes, it will cost money to find someone willing to do this. But can they afford not to? It goes back to the argument that the worst thing a business can do is cut their advertising budget. Same goes for non-profits.

BEFORE this can happen, you need money to fund it, so 100% effort should go towards fundraising. Many non-profits use professional fundraising services that more than pay for themselves. A good start would be replacing the "Sign up for a USFA Visa Card" link with a "Donate Here" link on the homepage.

Is the horse dead yet?

[MdA]

......The Director's Cup has been around for 15 years. The first year Stanford took 2nd (to UNC). They have won it 14 consecutive times since then. They are in the lead to win it again this year.
-B
.

Thanks Brad for the numbers and facts…I knew they were doing well over the years but I didn’t realize how well. So obviously, they don’t need fencing for the Directors Cup… these are some hard facts that get the attention of University Presidents, Athletic Directors, and most importantly donors and alumni.

Outside of numbers and performance objectives….there are personal factors that contribute to healthy varsity fencing programs. The impact of a strong leader/advocate/coach/administrator like Dr. Nikki Franke at Temple, Mike DeCicco at Notre Dame…they wouldn’t dare cut fencing while “the Godfather” is still around….Kaidanov at Penn State, Beguinet at Duke, and the late Sherry Posthumus at Stanford is/was crucial to the survival of a NCAA fencing program. They must be a promoter of the sport as well as a valuable contributor to the athletics department/university. Mike established the NCAA compliance department at ND in addition to being an engineering professor and fencing coach. Sherry Posthumus was an Assistant Athletic Director. Negotiating the politics of most college athletic departments is no easy task.

One more thought…Duke and Notre Dame seem to have parleyed Olympic and international fencing success into their “brand” name. The addition of Zagunis, Ward, Hurley, and Meinhardt to their fencing programs has been advertised and promoted with some success…..even though, as Mr E notes, the Universities had nothing to do with their Olympic success. For some Universities, having an Olympian and NCAA individual champion seems to be worthwhile.

The athletic directors seem to be picking off programs on the fringes of the fencing community…in the West…I am afraid UCSD is the next to go. …Air Force can jump to the Midwest. It is hard to argue in favor of a varsity fencing program when there are no other varsity fencing teams in your conference, region…or even an in-state rival. So what do we do about it? First we need to circle the wagons in the regions that are strong…and preserve what we have now. We need to encourage the many club programs to go varsity. The fencing community needs to figure out an incentive for college athletic directors. I think fencing has appeal to smaller Div III colleges and universities. We have 3 small college clubs here in San Antonio.

Finally, we need to make the NCAA championship format more exciting…right now it is just boring and difficult to understand. More media interest wouldn’t hurt…a showdown team event between Penn State and Ohio State might look good on TV and get some alumni support. The little schools hanging on for one or two entries are going to have to give in on this one if we are to get this trend going in the other direction!!!! See other thread.

NCAA Picks... you pick'em!

[keith]

This is exactly the kind of thing the USFA should be fighting for. Yes, I realize the USFA is overburdened and understaffed. But the lure of scholarships is a powerful motivator for parents to keep their kids fencing, and a growth incentive for the sport.

I suspect that if you considered the costs of raising a fencer who is scholarship competitive it would probably be cheaper to just send them full freight - of course you could save an absolute packet and just sent them of to a state school.

A scholarship may represent an excuse for an ambitious parent, but there are probably others that can work just as well.

[agyee95616]

I had the privilege of taking my first fencing class from Sherry Posthumus at Stanford over 20 years ago. I'm saddened to think of the program dying there -- it seems like such a good fit for the type of students Stanford attracts.

That being said, I must admit that it makes sense to me to cut the program. Most NCAA sports are not just self-supporting; rather, they seem to be money generating, or at least prestige generating. Basketball and football generate money -- other popular sports (swimming, tennis, golf, etc.) may not generate money directly, but they could result in notoriety (Olympic medalists) and rich (and hopefully generous) alumni (like Tiger Woods, maybe?).

For the average person on the street, fencing is not particularly engaging to watch. There is no professional fencer's league. Fencing just doesn't have the profile of other sports, even with high level success (how many people can identify who Mariel Zagunis is, compared to Michael Phelps or Shawn Johnson?).

I'm sad -- particularly because my son was hoping to fence at the varsity level at Stanford. Sounds like there won't be a program for him if he gets in! Sad... but it's not surprising.

[edew]

Fencing has indirect benefits to prospective college students. Yes, getting a scholarship is great. And fencing gives more scholarships than most other sports (rowing for women offers 97% scholarships, meaning 97% of female senior rowers get a scholarship [full or partial] to college for that sport).

In a NY Times article (that I think was mentioned here) a survey of HS senior athletes, 16% of fencers received some sort of scholarship. Compare that to 1.4% for basketball, 2.7% for football, 4.9% for lacrosse, 1.8% for soccer, 1.1% for track and field. Fencing for male HS students had the highest ratio of scholarship recipients among all major NCAA sports, and by a factor of about 4-10. For female HS seniors, 27% of fencers received scholarships. As I mentioned 97% for rowing, 12.5% for ice hockey, and then down to 1.8% for basketball, 1.7% for volleyball, 3% for swimmin/diving, 3.4% for soccer and 1.6% for track and field. So fencing does have direct, tangible benefits for high school athletes.

However, there are intangible indirect benefits. Putting "fencing" on your resume looks better than the same-old, same-old "basketball," "football," "soccer," sports. It definitely looks good compared to karate or tae kwan do. If you put parc-cour (sp?) on your resume, while it's a neat-o sport, most admissions personnel know nothing of it. Rock climbing? Indoor rock-climbing is a fad, outdoor might get you points. Snowboarding? Nothing special. So fencing fills that niche of being unique but not pompously faddish.

[Displacement]

DCup.jpg

OSU was National Football runner up this year. Fencing does matter.

[agyee95616]

OSU was National Football runner up this year. Fencing does matter.

It does matter, but its impact on Stanford's standing for the NACDA award is minimal. According to the latest (4/8/09) NACDA standings, Stanford received 63 points for a 9th place finish in fencing. But, they are in first place for the NACDA award by about 160 points over second place North Carolina. Even if Stanford dropped a hypothetically #1 fencing program (worth 100 points), they would still be in first place for the NACDA award.

[misha]

It does matter, but its impact on Stanford's standing for the NACDA award is minimal. According to the latest (4/8/09) NACDA standings, Stanford received 63 points for a 9th place finish in fencing. But, they are in first place for the NACDA award by about 160 points over second place North Carolina. Even if Stanford dropped a hypothetically #1 fencing program (worth 100 points), they would still be in first place for the NACDA award.

Well.... If Stanford drops fencing, these 63 points will go to some other college.
What if they go to the second place school? The net difference may be 126 points or 200 points for hypothetically #1 place.
That can make Stanford thinking

.