Stanford Fencing on the Chopping Block?

[DieterS]

Here's the text of my email that I just sent to the Stanford folks as requested by Craig. It will probably be ignored, but the lack of fencing scholarships was very much a major factor in two of my sons not applying to Stanford.

"My dad was a Stanford grad and one of my sons occasionally fenced foil at the excellent Stanford Fencing Club with some of the Stanford fencing team members there. My son did not apply to Stanford due to a lack of fencing scholarships. Instead, he was offered a large scholarship by Penn State where he later qualified as an NCAA All American on the Penn State team, and graduated magna cum laude from the university.

A second son also did not apply to Stanford due to the expense that could not be offset by a fencing scholarship. Instead, he graduated magna cum laude with a degree in electrical engineering from Cal Poly.

Both Penn State and Cal Poly turned out to be excellent universities for my sons, but Stanford would have been a lot closer.

Now, I've read that Stanford plans to cut fencing from its NCAA participation despite the program being self supporting. It seems obvious to me that if a sport is self supporting, cutting the sport is not going to save Stanford any money, and will simply result in Stanford continuing to lose capable scholars to other universities. Sincerely, (signature)"

[DieterS]

FYI, the email to the president of Stanford bounced:
<henessey@stanford.edu>... User unknown

[prototoast]

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

.

Stanford dropping out doesn't give another team their points, Stanford dropping out would only bump another team up one slot, so the real "effective loss" would be ~63+the marginal points of finishing one place higher in fencing.

[MdA]

…..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.…

I think this option needs to be explored. Division I, II and III varsity programs all compete together in the NCAA Fencing Championships.

With 9 scholarships, equipment, travel, and some good coaching, a small school like Trinity University could compete with Ohio State for a collegiate national championship….they could even concentrate in one weapon….for even less.

We also should try to convince Florida, which is at the top of the Directors Cup standings, to promote their fencing club to varsity status.

There are many smaller colleges and universities that could take this route….we should concentrate on these in the Northeast and Midwest regions.

[500gms]

1st.. At the Sept meeting of the BOD a committee was appointed to look into expanding collegiate and scholastic fencing. Luther Clement chairs the committee and Oiuyt is the BOD member in charge. This committee has not been particularly active yet, however I am hopeful...

Next. I know its hard to bring up NJ as a reference after Rutgers dropped M_W fencing, BUT, I believe we (NJ) have been able to maintain a number of smaller NCAA programs, Stevens, NJIT, Drew and FDU because of the wealth of middle of the pack fencers generated by the NJ HS programs. (see: threads 25262 and 27522 for discussions about NJ HS fencing)

I agree that the NCAA programs probably hinder the international successes of US fencers I think its because too many of our Junior fencers see getting into a top NCAA fencing program as the prize, the reason for all of the sacrifices they made to achieve nat'l status. Once they've made it many aren't willing to continue the high level training necessary to compete at the senior level. As a consequence the level of competition at our nat'l senior events (after eliminating the cadet and junior fencers competing but not yet in college) drops off. This is a major topic for a separate discussion in another thread.

[edew]

MdA, that might be a good idea to get UCBerkeley to go NCAA. USF was once NCAA, if I were to recall properly. So it might be a good idea to try to get them back to NCAA status. SFSU? I doubt it, as it's a commuter college. NDNU, sure why not, maybe it will compete against ND As for SJSU, I doubt we can get them back to NCAA status. Mills College, highly unlikely. And that's about it for 4-year colleges or universities around the Bay Area.

[Mr.MightyMouse]

Here's the text of my email that I just sent to the Stanford folks as requested by Craig. It will probably be ignored, but the lack of fencing scholarships was very much a major factor in two of my sons not applying to Stanford.

"My dad was a Stanford grad and one of my sons occasionally fenced foil at the excellent Stanford Fencing Club with some of the Stanford fencing team members there. My son did not apply to Stanford due to a lack of fencing scholarships. Instead, he was offered a large scholarship by Penn State where he later qualified as an NCAA All American on the Penn State team, and graduated magna cum laude from the university.

A second son also did not apply to Stanford due to the expense that could not be offset by a fencing scholarship. Instead, he graduated magna cum laude with a degree in electrical engineering from Cal Poly.

Both Penn State and Cal Poly turned out to be excellent universities for my sons, but Stanford would have been a lot closer.

Now, I've read that Stanford plans to cut fencing from its NCAA participation despite the program being self supporting. It seems obvious to me that if a sport is self supporting, cutting the sport is not going to save Stanford any money, and will simply result in Stanford continuing to lose capable scholars to other universities. Sincerely, (signature)"

1.
great letter - I will use my limited scribing abilities to fire one off as well.
2.
What is the USFA/NCAA committee doin' about this issue?
3.
With all the pontification talent on this board - will a deluge of emails help, surely it won't hurt?

[Purple Fencer]

MdA, that might be a good idea to get UCBerkeley to go NCAA. USF was once NCAA, if I were to recall properly. So it might be a good idea to try to get them back to NCAA status. SFSU? I doubt it, as it's a commuter college. NDNU, sure why not, maybe it will compete against ND As for SJSU, I doubt we can get them back to NCAA status. Mills College, highly unlikely. And that's about it for 4-year colleges or universities around the Bay Area.

How about down south???

[bigdawg2121]

There's a whole bunch of schools down south that used to have varsity fencing. Apparently the ACC was a full conference at one point actually.

[MdA]

There's a whole bunch of schools down south that used to have varsity fencing. Apparently the ACC was a full conference at one point actually.

Clemson and Maryland had varsity teams ...years ago...before the NCAA took over fencing.

I think it is easier to start a varsity program at a school that never had fencing.....rather than restart a team at a college that dropped fencing.

Basically, you are trying to get the athletic department to admit that they made a mistake. I have never seen it done successfully....look at Army and Navy....they never came back....despite history and tradition.

[Cerian]

MdA, that might be a good idea to get UCBerkeley to go NCAA. USF was once NCAA, if I were to recall properly. So it might be a good idea to try to get them back to NCAA status. SFSU? I doubt it, as it's a commuter college. NDNU, sure why not, maybe it will compete against ND As for SJSU, I doubt we can get them back to NCAA status. Mills College, highly unlikely. And that's about it for 4-year colleges or universities around the Bay Area.

UCSC used to be NCAA.

[JEC]

1st.. At the Sept meeting of the BOD a committee was appointed to look into expanding collegiate and scholastic fencing. Luther Clement chairs the committee and Oiuyt is the BOD member in charge. This committee has not been particularly active yet, however I am hopeful...

At Southwest Sectionals, I had the opportunity of discussing a possible approach to collegial fencing. Given the economy, it is unlikely that any university will be expanding sports right now. We should do a quiet survey of Athletic Directors (with NCAA fencing and compare to those without varsity) asking them about their motivations and where fencing plays a role (they might be more frank now when we are not asking to create a program). The work by a committee now will pay off in 2-3 years when AD's might be ready for expansions. Furthermore, the USFA should show the statistics about growth of Youth, Cadet and Junior fencing. When the rumor mill or the time comes for program reviews, USFA should have a package to help keeping NCAA Fencing alive as well as to prepare successful college clubs to move into varsity.

USFA should also pursue the Y14 and cadet fencers with legacy memberships (life supporting) but over 4-5 years. In this way, as the kids get out of college, they have a life membership and are less likely to drop the sport. Lastly, the Vet-22 or Vet-25 (without the Junior fencers who training hard) category should be instituted allowing post-college fencers to compete in more equal grounds.

[Mr.MightyMouse]

Guess I stuttered the 1 st time.
Is the USFA NCAA committee working with Stanford on preserving the program?

[fencerll]

It will probably be ignored, but the lack of fencing scholarships was very much a major factor in two of my sons not applying to Stanford.

Didn't Bassa get a fencing scholarship to Stanford?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

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.

"Department-level", "centralized"

That may be "best practice" seen from the departments point of view, but why should that matter to the donor?

Why not starting a drive in which potential donors of scholarships (yes, I know, the effect would come a long way down the road) are asked to tie the donation to good behavior by an athletic department, and not to its identity?

A sample such donation as a part of a will could read:

---SAMPLE WILL-----
I, John Doe, hereby bequeath X% of my assets to an athletic scholarship. The interest of that sum should fund the scholarship of one student. If the captail of that donation sinks lower that Y dollars, or if no eligble stundent at an eligble university applies for that year, then no scholarship should be payed out for that year.

A student is eligble to apply for this scholarship if he/she fulfills at least one of the criteria below:
1. The student has been a member of a National governing body of the sport of fencing for at least two years, and has finished in at least N number of competitions. Student fulfilling criteria only are eligble for a scholarship of at most 10% of the yearly tuition.
2. The student is currently ranked at least #8 nationally, or #64 internationally by FIE, in their age category. Students fulfilling this criteria are eligble for a full tuition scholarship.
3. The student is a current member of the University varsity team in fencing. Students fulfilling this criteria are eligble for a full tuition scholarship.

If a university fulfills any of the criteria below, all its students are ineligble for the scholarship. Should a student eligble under #1-3 find himself/herself ineligble due to changes in university status, any transfer by that student to an eligble university will render the student eligble again. The criteria are:
4. Winning the Heisman trophy in 20 most recent years.
5. Having a varsity team in any sport, in which the number of members for one gender is at least 20 more than the other.
6. Having a varsity scholarship structure in which the sport which has the most number of scholarships accounts for more than 20% of the total # of scholarships.
7. Having cut fencing as a varsity team sport in the 10 most recent years.
8. (The possibilities are endless, fill in your own here!)

In the event of more than one eligble student applying in any one year, precedence should go to the student (if any) who had the scholarship last year. If last year´s recipient of the scholarship is not applying or ineligble and there is more than one eligble applicant, precedence should go to the applicant(s) of the university which has the highest dollar-value funding of its varsity team, if any. If there are more than one applicant from that university, or that all applicants are from universities without fencing varsity teams, precedence should go to the applicant with the highest NPR ranking. Should there be more than one eligble applicants which can not be separated per the above, precendece should go the the applicant with the highest letter ranking, with ties decided by lots.
----SAMPLE WILL STOPS HERE-----

There you are!
A scholarship that is portable from university to another, and punishes bad behavior by athletic departments! Obviously, such a scholarship can not be entrusted to the university, one would have to let a bank manage it. If the university lets the big sports get their will to much, they run the risk of losing a student which so far was pure revenue.

Of course, one single will not mean anything, but if there are many or if the USFA manages a big one, things might change. The few scholarships that we have here in Sweden are almost always managed by other entities than the university itself, even if they are (as is common) tied to a given university.

In any case, criteria #4-7 should send a message.



Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[JEC]

Didn't Bassa get a fencing scholarship to Stanford?

Yes, 100% for 2009-10.
see: http://www.alliance-fencing-academy....ship_2008.html

[fencerll]

but the lack of fencing scholarships was very much a major factor in two of my sons not applying to Stanford.

So how is that true if she got one and what is going to happen if they get rid of the fencing team?

[epeemike81]

So how is that true if she got one and what is going to happen if they get rid of the fencing team?

If they eliminate the team, her scholarship will still be honored all 4 years.

-m

[JEC]

So how is that true if she got one and what is going to happen if they get rid of the fencing team?

According to NCAA, Div. I Men's Fencing teams can have up to a total of 4.5 FTE scholarships and the Women's Fencing team can have 5 scholarships.
http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uplo...d6827c16bc.pdf see page 183

However, every school with fencing has the choice to fund them (or not) according to title IX guidelines. This results with fully funding the Women's teams (including the 5 Women's Fencing scholarships) to offset the expense of the Men's Football team, and often not funding the scholarships for the Men's Fencing team.

[Purple Fencer]

There's a whole bunch of schools down south that used to have varsity fencing. Apparently the ACC was a full conference at one point actually.

I meant Southern California, actually....