Stanford Fencing on the Chopping Block?

[MdA]

…..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.
Peter Gustafsson

Peter, this is a good idea. Unfortunately, these few fencing Universities have very selective admissions policies. Without fencing….these slots would easily be filled with other paying customers.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

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).

As the stories go, Smith Fencing was told that Fencing would be the next sport made NCAA. And given that the only other well organized and long lasting club sport is one that isn't governed by the NCAA, it's even a good bet that if Smith ever gets an additional club sport, it will be fencing.

But Smith isn't just cutting expenses now, they've been cutting expenses since before I got there. Based on the plans they have, they will be cutting expenses until at least 2010, no matter what. After that, the push will be to get things back, not get new things. What you need is fencing (at Smith) being on an upswing at the same time as an upswing in the economy. I'm not sure how likely that one is.

[Mr Epee]

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

-m

While this is often the case and is certainly the decent move, there is no guarantee that this is absolutely the case. Athletic scholarships are one year contracts. They are renewed each year at the discretion of the coach/athletic department/university/etc.

Enjoy this link from the 2009 commitment thread.

One year at Stanford: $48,050

Just for fun, let's multiply that by four.

Anticipated cost of a Stanford education: $192,200

These are the things that I know at a certain level, but am routinely shocked by when I see them in print.

I really don't know how scholarships are paid at a private university in California, but it's entirely possible that the Stanford Athletic Department is on the hook for that amount with each of it's athletic scholarships. At a bare minimum, there are opportunity costs involved.

-------------
Following from Peter's suggestion, in New Zealand, where they don't have a comparable collegiate sport structure, elite athletes are eligible for what they call Prime Minister's Athletic Scholarships. These scholarships are offered by the NZ government to offset university and living expenses to the tune of NZD10k and NZD 6k per year - respectively, and can be applied to the university of the athlete's choosing. They are part of a program designed to support post-athletic career development for New Zealand's top athletes.

I suspect a very similar program exists in most other Commonwealth countries, as there tends to be significant homogeneity between their sport program structures.

[Mr Epee]

As the stories go, Smith Fencing was told that Fencing would be the next sport made NCAA.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the last time a fencing program was made NCAA, or even expanded (i.e., (re)added a men's program) ???

If there have been any, what was the rationale?

[edew]

While this is often the case and is certainly the decent move, there is no guarantee that this is absolutely the case. Athletic scholarships are one year contracts. They are renewed each year at the discretion of the coach/athletic department/university/etc.

Enjoy this link from the 2009 commitment thread.

One year at Stanford: $48,050

Just for fun, let's multiply that by four.

Anticipated cost of a Stanford education: $192,200

That's assuming that they're not going to raise the fees during the four years.

I remember when I was in grad school in 1985 (the incident was 1987 or so), when we were teaching compound interest to freshmen math students. We used the 6% increase per year in tuition. At that time, UPenn was charging somewhere around $20K. The question was, how much would tuition be after 20 years? When we got the answer of about $80K or so (doubles every 11 years or so), we all thought that was patently ridiculous. No school would charge that much. Well... at $50K (in reality, out of pocket total for a parent paying with no monetary offset would be around $60-65K) it's not that far off the mark of being ridiculous.

[sheck]

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

The ACC fell apart between 1980-82 (see Title 9). At Maryland we only had a men's team but 4 or 5 full athletic scholarships. Clemson was absolutely loaded with money. UNC had athletic scholarships same with NC State. Maryland, Clemson and UNC were all in the NCAA top 5 at some point. Only Wake didn't have a NCAA team (this is prior to GTech's entry). I don't see Maryland ever having a NCAA team again.

Originally Posted by bigdawg2121 View Post
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.

Men's fencing was a official ACC sport until 1980 (indoor track was also dropped). Maryland, Virginia(not AD funded), Dook, UNC, Clemson and NC State had NCAA men's teams. I know UNC and Clemson had official women's teams.

Just in the DC area there was Maryland, George Mason, Navy and Hopkins with NCAA teams. Hopkins is the only one left today.

[seak]

A lot of the issue with the ACC was that Clemson didn't like their fencing coach and so used it as an excuse to get rid of him by cutting the sport, at that point there were only 7 or so schools with fencing and critical mass started to be lost (you need 5 for an ACC championship).

Duke and UNC kept their teams anyways, with the recent expansion of the ACC BC also has a varsity team. Duke currently allocates at least some money in fencing scholarships. I've heard rumors that UNC actually has money to allocate fencing scholarships, but due to school policy only awards athletic scholarship money in ACC sports.

If the ACC could get to 5 teams AD's would look at it more seriously, esp as a lot of the schools have well established club teams. There is at least some extremely small possibility that UMD will add a women's fencing team* if the economy ever turns around. I hold out little hope for a men's team.

*The school is currently attempting to add scholarships so all their men's teams are fully funded to do that they need to add women's teams/scholarships recently they added cheerleading and something else, as those were the only two club sports that applied that year

[sheck]

A lot of the issue with the ACC was that Clemson didn't like their fencing coach and so used it as an excuse to get rid of him by cutting the sport, at that point there were only 7 or so schools with fencing and critical mass started to be lost (you need 5 for an ACC championship).
[/SIZE]

Sorry but men's fencing was dropped prior to that -> 1980. We had the numbers but it was a political move to axe fencing. BTW my brother went to Clemson on a full ride so I know all about the Clemson situation.

[seak]

Sorry but men's fencing was dropped prior to that -> 1980. We had the numbers but it was a political move to axe fencing. BTW my brother went to Clemson on a full ride so I know all about the Clemson situation.

Oh I agree it was all political, I'm just sick of seeing title 9 get blamed for stuff, when the reality, in most cases, is it was the excuse and not the reason. UMD for instance could've just as easily added a women's team as cut the men's, and switched the scholarships over to help balance football (which is the real title 9 issue on a lot of levels).

[sheck]

Oh I agree it was all political, I'm just sick of seeing title 9 get blamed for stuff, when the reality, in most cases, is it was the excuse and not the reason. UMD for instance could've just as easily added a women's team as cut the men's, and switched the scholarships over to help balance football (which is the real title 9 issue on a lot of levels).

It basically came down to the Clemson AD voting for men's lacrosse (they didn't have the numbers to be a official ACC sport). The AD at Maryland at that time (James Kehoe) had no interest in fencing and wanted it out of the ACC. (Believe me I lived through it.) He was behind the political move to save lacrosse and a big time track and field supporter (the Maryland AD was dominated by ex track people at that time). Fencing was given the last in first out treatment. Once the ACC dropped men's fencing (no more ACC Championship) Maryland immediately dropped their program. Pretty much the only reason they had one in the first place was for Carmichael Cup (top ACC Athletic program based on ACC Championships) points which we supplied for a small investment. BTW I agree about Title 9 being used as a excuse.

[hello?]

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.

I think the thought that the school might see a 'sustained and strong interest in SOMETHING' (and something that the kid has been at least moderately successful at) might also be a factor. It's not just the money.

[DieterS]

For your interest, I received a kind reply from Stanford athletic director, Bob Bowlsby. He stated, in part:

"Last year our University spent $476,000 on the varsity fencing programs. This figure includes scholarships, salaries, operating expenses, etc but does not include a wide variety of support services which are funded centrally within our department."

Here's my reply:

Dear Mr. Bowlsby,

Thank you for responding to my email and for the additional detail to clear up my misperceptions.

In the business world that I'm in, we are often challenged to provide products and services more efficiently, reducing unnecessary expenses while increasing quality where it really counts. The result is better for everyone, but usually requires some dramatic rethinking and restructuring.

The $476,000 figure you quoted can be quickly used up in salaries alone. The fencing clubs with which I'm familiar maintain good programs that generate revenue with significantly smaller budgets. I've recently learned that two former Stanford varsity fencers have opened a club in New York City.

I looked up a recent article in the Mercury News where you are quoted as being committed to reducing the number of sports only as a last resort, which I applaud. Very few students are going to be capable of competing in football and basketball, nor will they be interested. I would encourage you in your commitment to maintaining the breadth of sport offerings at Stanford, especially lifetime sports.

Thanks again for your response and best regards,

Dieter Schlaepfer

Lifetime sports are those that active adults can continue to participate for the rest of their lives. This includes fencing, table tennis, golf, long-distance running, and many other sports that do not require a full team and bone-jarring, teeth-rattling, tendon-tearing contact.

Dieter

[Mr.MightyMouse]

Isn't there sumpm' like USFA/NCAA Committee - would not this issue be up their alley?

[Displacement]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the last time a fencing program was made NCAA, or even expanded (i.e., (re)added a men's program) ???

If there have been any, what was the rationale?

Boston College possibly?

[edew]

For your interest, I received a kind reply from Stanford athletic director, Bob Bowlsby. He stated, in part:

"Last year our University spent $476,000 on the varsity fencing programs. This figure includes scholarships, salaries, operating expenses, etc but does not include a wide variety of support services which are funded centrally within our department."

Here's my reply:

[...]

$476K might include the university's contribution to the fencing facility at the new location and might be the cost no matter what sport or activity occurs there. I doubt the four coaches use up the bulk of the budget. I can imagine the travel for most of the NCAA competitions may eat up a good part of the budget. Let's say $200K for travel. Then the balance would be for equipment, coaches, referees and equipment rental (yes, I received some money from Stanford for renting them my scoring machines and reels).

[prototoast]

$476K might include the university's contribution to the fencing facility at the new location and might be the cost no matter what sport or activity occurs there. I doubt the four coaches use up the bulk of the budget. I can imagine the travel for most of the NCAA competitions may eat up a good part of the budget. Let's say $200K for travel. Then the balance would be for equipment, coaches, referees and equipment rental (yes, I received some money from Stanford for renting them my scoring machines and reels).

I would suspect that the majority of the budget is scholarships, and 200k would be a huge overestimate for travel.

[edew]

There are 26 members of the team, men and women combined. Suppose only 20 attend tournaments. Add the four coaches, so airfare is $300 x 24 = $7200. 12 rooms for 2 days at $100/day is $2400. So $10K per trip. They do 3 or 4 travels, not including the NCAA Championships (which is paid for by NCAA), so we get $40K.

If you look at the list of fencers Fencing Roster, it doesn't seem that there are too many there getting a full ride. I can imagine some of the names there are getting some amount of money, maybe $5K or $10K per year, but who there are getting anything close to full rides?

So, perhaps some amount of that $476K is going towards general administration?

[oiuyt]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the last time a fencing program was made NCAA, or even expanded (i.e., (re)added a men's program) ???

If there have been any, what was the rationale?

The most recent new teams, in order, are St. Francis (which, as far as I know, hasn't actually started a competition schedule, although it's possible I might just not be aware of it if they have. I'm not sure they have a coach or athletes yet.), Yeshiva women (elevated from club status), and Sacred Heart. Next most recent prior to that was probably Tuft's women.

I may have the order flipped on Yeshiva and St. Francis. Both were in the past 2-3ish years.

-B

[noodle]

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.

just to pass along information that found its way to me, UF has the money and seems to be ready/willing to make a push for varsity status. if you (or anyone, really) have any pull, a letter to an AD might be a good idea

i think one of the big roadblocks for clubs going varsity is the fact that the shift, for many programs, will be a total upheaval. it isn't really in the best interest of a club if they were to apply for status, get it, and then have the first order of business be the new varsity team kicks out all the club fencers and/or the coach.

[edew]

From reading DieterS's and responses from local Bay Area groups, it does seem like the discontinuation of fencing at Stanford is imminent. On the other hand, it also does sound like fencing's return is quite possible within a few years depending on the general state of the state's, nation's and world's financial health.