NCAA Coaches as Referees at elite Youth/Cadet/JR events

[Mr Epee]

Due to the Stanford thread, I started thinking about the interaction between US Fencing and NCAA programs.

NCAA Coaches as Referees at elite Youth/Cadet/JR events...

It happens all the time, but should it?

1) Given the nature of the NCAA coaches' professional duties, doesn't it seem that a significant conflict of interest exists across the board that would prevent him/her from performing as a referee for these events?

2) Why would any quality coach risk even the appearance of NCAA recruiting/evaluation/encounter violations (and by extension their job) for the opportunity to work as a referee at these events?

I don't understand how this practice continues.

Surely, this is a terrible idea.

Yes?

[campb1pr]

There are two specific NCAA bylaws that address this:

13.1.7.2.3 Approved Events. It is permissible for athletics staff members who are responsible for conducting an approved athletics event (see Bylaw 13.11.3) involving prospective student-athletes to come in normal contact with participants; however, under no circumstances may recruitment take place.

13.11.3.6 Officiating. An institution’s coach may officiate competition that involves prospective student-athletes, provided the competition is regularly scheduled under the authority of an outside sports organization.


NCAA Division I manual - available at the ncaapublications.com website:

http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uplo...d6827c16bc.pdf


I would assume that D-II and D-III have similar provisions in place, research on your own.


The onus on the coach is to have normal interactions with the PSA, and not discuss their program, which then becomes a contact. However, there are all sorts of nuances to the rules that are too numerous to go into here. For more fun reading, you can try and comprehend all of Bylaw 13 of the NCAA manual. (49 pages of the manual for ONE bylaw)

However, the short answer is that they are covered by the two bylaws above.

[oiuyt]

For more fun reading, you can try and comprehend all of Bylaw 13 of the NCAA manual. (49 pages of the manual for ONE bylaw)

Article 17 (Playing and Practice Seasons) has that beat. 76 pages.

Article 14 (Eligibility) at 42 pages is comparable.

Just for reference, Article 13 is Recruiting.

-B

[campb1pr]

Article 17 (Playing and Practice Seasons) has that beat. 76 pages.

Article 14 (Eligibility) at 42 pages is comparable.

Just for reference, Article 13 is Recruiting.

-B

Yeah, but 17 is mostly lists and details for each sport - each coach only has to worry about a small part of that one.

Brad - you can attest to how much fun it is to study all those bylaws for the exam to be able to recruit off campus. I haven't had to take one in 8 years, and still have nightmares when I see the manual!

[Mr Epee]

Note: I wasn't questioning the permissibility of the situation, but rather the wisdom of having this situation become routine... especially to the extent that it is in fencing.

Surely a few eyebrows would be raised, if Roy Williams were flying around the country to referee elite youth basketball games. Yes? Yes.

AND...

It's also possible to swing the glass around, and peer from the opposite direction. Why is the USFA consistently hiring and developing collegiate coaches as referees, particularly, when other individuals are available.

[darius]

The big problem is that they're often better than the rest.

You're not going to find many domestic replacements for Glon and Tass, particularly.

darius

[Mr Epee]

The big problem is that they're often better than the rest.

You're not going to find many domestic replacements for Glon and Tass, particularly.

darius

Yes, by all accounts, they are both excellent referees; however, every top bout that they referee represents a development opportunity missed for someone else. Experience matters.

Essentially, the USFA is habitually subsidizing what are basically talent evaluation (scouting) trips for elite level college coaches, and in doing so forgoes the opportunity to develop other referees - referees without the political baggage of an NCAA coach.

That doesn't make sense to me.

It also has a certain flair of temerity on the part of the coach.

[JEC]

On the other hand, this is potentially an equal opportunity for less well known NCAA coaches.

[Allen Evans]

I suspect that in 15 years or so, this will be a moot point.

AE

[RITFencing]

Let me play devils advocate here, because to my mind Mr E's last post raises two other interesting questions:

Should all high level bouts be used for the development of refs? If we go to one extreme in this case, then once refs reach a certain level, they will see little or no use in bouts appropriate to their skill level. On the other hand, we will never have replacements for them if they stop. Clearly, the solution is to use some of these bouts for development and give some (mainly the particularly decisive ones, which decide who does and does not make a team) to the more experienced and competent refs. However, where exactly do we draw the line?

Secondly, while this does amount to paid scouting trips for the coaches in question, does this actually harm the USFA? It's not like providing extra benefit for some of the refs involved will always worsen the USFA's situation; in fact, it's quite possible to have a situtaion become completely mutually beneficial. There are a lot of politics involved with NCAA coaches, but what proof (or at least well reasoned theories, proof is always a bit much to ask on an internet forum) that using NCAA coaches as refs creates real problems and controversy?

In a perfect world, I understand that there are good reasons why the two positions should be kept separate. Sadly, our world is not perfect, and there are a limited number of qualified people. As is often the case in fencing, they tend to wear many hats.

Personally, I think that so long as the individuals in question can keep their performance level high and maintain a professional lack of bias (and a high degree of professionalism overall) there is no reason they should be given any more or less chance than any other ref of their ability. Of course, whether they can is another question, but that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

[MdA]

Due to the Stanford thread, I started thinking about the interaction between US Fencing and NCAA programs.......

2) Why would any quality coach risk even the appearance of NCAA recruiting/evaluation/encounter violations (and by extension their job) for the opportunity to work as a referee at these events? ......

I really don't think this is a big deal. NCAA Fencing has much bigger problems ref: the Stanford thread.

Let's face it....millions of potential dollars are not involved here. I think the NCAA is willing to let the USFA handle this one....like the fencing rulebook.

[Mr Epee]

RIT, what the heck has gotten into you?

You may be trying to play Devil's Advocate, but somehow you've ended up playing on a totally separate set of tracks. Do Red Herrings have horns? If so, that may be the source of your derailing.

Should all high level bouts be used for the development of refs? If we go to one extreme in this case, then once refs reach a certain level, they will see little or no use in bouts appropriate to their skill level. On the other hand, we will never have replacements for them if they stop. Clearly, the solution is to use some of these bouts for development and give some (mainly the particularly decisive ones, which decide who does and does not make a team) to the more experienced and competent refs. However, where exactly do we draw the line?

Where did this come from?

Every bout for every referee and fencer represents experience. In this sense - barring some inherent lack of acuity - I suppose that every experience represents development.

My thought was more along the lines of why repeatedly and continuously are those opportunities awarded to individuals with tangible baggage, and professional duties that do not contribute to an air of impartiality.

Yes, I'm deeply aware of the absurdly bizarre incestuousness that is saber refereeing. I think we are all aware of that ugly nest. I, for one, would be more comfortable moving away from that model, not indulging it. I would expect that you, as a young coach attempting to carve out a career, would feel the same.

Secondly, while this does amount to paid scouting trips for the coaches in question, does this actually harm the USFA? It's not like providing extra benefit for some of the refs involved will always worsen the USFA's situation; in fact, it's quite possible to have a situtaion become completely mutually beneficial. There are a lot of politics involved with NCAA coaches, but what proof (or at least well reasoned theories, proof is always a bit much to ask on an internet forum) that using NCAA coaches as refs creates real problems and controversy?

In a perfect world, I understand that there are good reasons why the two positions should be kept separate. Sadly, our world is not perfect, and there are a limited number of qualified people. As is often the case in fencing, they tend to wear many hats.

This is a horrible argument...

If it can't be perfect, then there's no point in trying? Wow.

Topped off with an appeal to tradition. Double wow.

Hey, did you know that mafia run neighborhoods often have lower reported crime rates than normal neighborhoods? We should look into opportunities to expand the mafia to all neighborhoods. I should be a city planner.

Personally, I think that so long as the individuals in question can keep their performance level high and maintain a professional lack of bias (and a high degree of professionalism overall) there is no reason they should be given any more or less chance than any other ref of their ability. Of course, whether they can is another question, but that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Your faith in humanity is admirable, but it does not represent the basis of good policy.

I have a few other thoughts on this subject, but they will have to wait for another time. I'm late. I'm late for a very important date.

[Mr Epee]

I really don't think this is a big deal. NCAA Fencing has much bigger problems ref: the Stanford thread.

Let's face it....millions of potential dollars are not involved here.

I'm not sure that 'millions of potential dollars' represents an appropriate demarcation line for discussing questionable situations.

[MdA]

I'm not sure that 'millions of potential dollars' represents an appropriate demarcation line for discussing questionable situations.

It does when the NCAA is involved.

[prototoast]

1) Given the nature of the NCAA coaches' professional duties, doesn't it seem that a significant conflict of interest exists across the board that would prevent him/her from performing as a referee for these events?

Yes.

2) Why would any quality coach risk even the appearance of NCAA recruiting/evaluation/encounter violations (and by extension their job) for the opportunity to work as a referee at these events?

Because it's currently an accepted practice.


I think this causes an even bigger problem with referees in college competitions. All too often college coaches will use their position as a national/international referee to threaten college referees whose calls they are unhappy with. Hopefully as the fencing community grows, there will be greater specialization, so we can avoid these conflicts of interest.

[catwood1]

Its partially a matter of practicality. If *they* (the highly rated college coach / referees) don't ref the bouts, then who will? We can't just say thats its better for development. If we did, then RIT is right, and 1s and 2s would never ref anything.

Its hard enough to find referees who dont' have a conflict. In fact, its impossible. Every ref has conflicts, they simply do not referee those bouts. Ideally, fencing would be big enough where individuals could be referees and nothing else (similar to what can happen in football or baseball). However, in our sport, its not big enough. The fencers ref, the coaches ref, and the refs coach. There are very few people who only have 1 job in our sport.

[Mr Epee]

I think this causes an even bigger problem with referees in college competitions. All too often college coaches will use their position as a national/international referee to threaten college referees whose calls they are unhappy with. Hopefully as the fencing community grows, there will be greater specialization, so we can avoid these conflicts of interest.

Not being someone who travels in those circles, I hadn't even considered that aspect... although, now that you mention it, I have heard a few egregious stories along those lines.

The other scenario that comes into play is the effect on the young fencers, themselves.

We regularly see situations in which young fencers are being refereed by coaches who will have a say in determining whether that fencer is offered an athletic scholarship. At a minimum, we're talking about ten's of thousands of dollars. Surely, this has to have some influence on the things that are running through the competitor's minds. It's tough enough on an athlete when they know that a scout is present to evaluate their performance - and that's just acting as an observer of talent... not playing a central role to determining the outcome of the match.

Its partially a matter of practicality. If *they* (the highly rated college coach / referees) don't ref the bouts, then who will? We can't just say thats its better for development. If we did, then RIT is right, and 1s and 2s would never ref anything.

Reading comprehension and critical thinking are your friends... use them.

Its hard enough to find referees who dont' have a conflict. In fact, its impossible. Every ref has conflicts, they simply do not referee those bouts. Ideally, fencing would be big enough where individuals could be referees and nothing else (similar to what can happen in football or baseball). However, in our sport, its not big enough. The fencers ref, the coaches ref, and the refs coach. There are very few people who only have 1 job in our sport.

True. But maybe, just maybe, it would be smart to try to avoid hiring the handful of people who have massive across the board conflicts, and will most certainly be paying for some of the competitor's college education.

This may have been a necessary evil in previous decades, but we can do better today.

[MdA]

…… But maybe, just maybe, it would be smart to try to avoid hiring the handful of people who have massive across the board conflicts, and will most certainly be paying for some of the competitor's college education…..This may have been a necessary evil in previous decades, but we can do better today.

Most of the Head Coaches at the top scholarship universities….Bednarski, Kaidanov, Nazlymov, Gelman…don’t ref much anymore…most likely because of this issue.
Then you have the Ivies …which don’t give “athletic scholarships”…but most of the Head Coaches don’t ref anymore either….with one or two exceptions.
So you are really talking about a “handful” of assistant coaches. And I know some of them have avoided assignment to bouts where there was an obvious conflict of interest. I have never encountered this problem with any of my fencers.
I think the perceived conflict may exist when cadet/junior fencers think they are being recruited….and they are not. In this case, this potential conflict should be brought to the attention of the FOC assigner…and it will usually be resolved before the bout or pool.