Darius blogging from PASO

[MdA]

How many Coach-Training-Days does the USFCA produce every year?

At what level?

I see where you are going with this…that is a good point with the week-long format vs the weekend format of the USFCA clinics.

Rob Handelman would be the real person to handle (no pun intended) this question….but I will take a stab at it.

PASO + CC : 43 coaches X 6 days = 258 coach/training days

USFCA Clinics: 5 clinics X 16 coaches (average) X 2 days = 160 coach/training days

USFCA Annual Conference: 50 coaches (estimate) X 2 days = 100 coach/training days

…so it is pretty close 258 vs 260….and I think the beginning coaches clinic this past August in Portland area was a week long instead of 2 days….so that might actually increase the USFCA hours a little.

As for level…that is a little tougher since clinics usually have mixed levels…mostly Moniteur and Prevot level.

……Even most of the detractors will say that they're moving in the right direction, we'd just question whether the degree of movement is enough to consider getting certified.

darius

I don’t think you need to get certified. There was an ammendment at the Annual General Meeting in San Diego to allow non-certified members of the USFCA be “full-members” and vote, serve on committees and hold office. I am not sure how the vote went…I will check with Abdel on this one.

[oiuyt]

I don’t think you need to get certified. There was an ammendment at the Annual General Meeting in San Diego to allow non-certified members of the USFCA be “full-members” and vote, serve on committees and hold office. I am not sure how the vote went…I will check with Abdel on this one.

I believe I read that it passed.

I don't think it's productive to hold a "Which organization is educating more coaches" contest. 500 coach-education-days/year is too low. Let's work to make it 5,000, regardless of which is doing how much. Then let's make it 50,000.

The answer isn't which group is doing more or doing it better than the other. We need BOTH groups doing more and doing it better. Can there be more cooperation between the two? Sure. Can both improve in both quantity and quality of training opportunities? Sure. So let's focus on those areas.

-B

[Allen Evans]

Can there be more cooperation between the two? Sure. Can both improve in both quantity and quality of training opportunities? Sure. So let's focus on those areas.

Unofficially, what are the areas of cooperation that you might see?

[oiuyt]

Unofficially, what are the areas of cooperation that you might see?

Off the top of my head, and without giving it specific thought:

* Cross-promotion of clinics and other educational opportunities
* Sharing of information regarding
** Methods of teaching teaching (meta-teaching?)
** Methods of promotion of clinics
** Methods of encouraging coaches to want to obtain further education
** Third-party offerings that are likely to be of use or benefit to members of both organizations
* Mutual recognition of training/certification
* Joint efforts at general promotion of the sport
* Reduction in duplication of effort*

There should be significant overlap in the membership of the USFCA with US Fencing. Indeed, with the possible exception of USFCA members who are exclusively focused on non-sport areas of fencing (historical, etc.) I think every member of the USFCA should be a member of US Fencing. Then again, I think that's also true of the large number of coaches who are currently members of neither.

Now clearly there are coaches who aren't members. My solution is that we need to come up with sufficient obvious benefits to membership that it's a compelling case and such coaches wouldn't consider not joining. We have not yet done that.

Similarly the USFCA should be able to present a sufficiently compelling case for why all US-based coaches should join that such coaches feel it's mind-numbingly obvious that joining the USFCA is worth the $50/year (or whatever membership currently is). They also have not done that.

There are huge areas of mutual or overlapping interest between these two groups. Many of the goals are in harmony and, unless stupid turf wars break out, few to no areas of opposition. Both US Fencing and the USFCA should want the sport to grow, there to be more coaches, there to be better coaches, the level and quantity of athletes to grow, the profile of the sport to increase, etc., etc. Anything that moves towards ANY of those goals is an area of potential cooperation between the two groups.

-B

* Reportedly the USFCA has been looking at adding a benefit such as an equivalent liability coverage to the one that US Fencing already includes as a free service for all Coach members. This seems unnecessary to me.

[MdA]

I agree with Brad. It doesn’t make much sense to argue for one organization over the other. They both have the same goals for fencing and coaches. Not many USFCA members are exclusively historical/classical/theatrical teachers….most are sport fencing coaches.

Let me remind coaches that it is the beginning of the membership year for both organizations. If we are going to expand the number of coach training-days, both organizations need your support. Membership should be a “no-brainer” for most coaches interested in self-improvement….and if you think you’ve learned everything you need to know about fencing….try teaching other coaches….you will learn even more.

[oso97]

Reportedly the USFCA has been looking at adding a benefit such as an equivalent liability coverage to the one that US Fencing already includes as a free service for all Coach members. This seems unnecessary to me.

Except, as per the membership plan presentation at the SN USFA BOD meeting, its not going to be free any more, in the somewhat near future.

[oiuyt]

Except, as per the membership plan presentation at the SN USFA BOD meeting, its not going to be free any more, in the somewhat near future.

It will be free; the cost of a Coach (renamed professional) membership will be higher than it has been in the past.

I will agree that that is merely semantics.

The suggestions that I've heard of the USFCA trying to offer such insurance well predate any discussion of changes in the membership structure of US Fencing that include an increase in the cost of the coach membership. They certainly precede any of the proponents being aware of such discussions, which are fairly recent. It was presented as an example of where the two bodies overlap and duplicate efforts.

Increasing the cost of the coach/professional membership doesn't change the calculus at all. US Fencing needs to find ways of offering enough benefit to US-based coaches that it becomes a no-brainer that they join. A higher cost makes that more difficult, but doesn't significantly change the task.

-B

[Allen Evans]

I'm still very confused by this membership change, which makes me think that either:

A. This change was not very well thought out, or...

B. The other shoe on this membership class has yet to drop.

[pjsise1]

The change in membership (eliminating the associate membership) was done, as I understand it, primarily to create a larger pool from which to draw volunteers for committees and elected offices. I think that this is one of those changes that in theory can benefit the organization but in practice won't change much. If anything, babysteps in the right direction are still progress. This also eliminates the fee difference between the non-certified members and the certified members. This eliminates the "Why should I test for moniteur? All it will do is cost me more each year in dues?" This also means that all the members that were paying $35 a year will be paying $50 (assuming they remain members) and the USFCA will have more money coming in each year. What will they do with the money? We were told (or at least I remember hearing) that additional revenues were necessary for the annual summer conference. The USFCA has had some success in the last few years with its new clinic format and high level presentations and wants to be able to pay high profile coaches what they're actually worth to come and give their presentations, as well as their travel and hotel costs. That way we don't have the same 3 or 4 USFCA officers (who would have to be there anyway) giving presentations over and over. So, for the added $15 a year, an attendee can get someone like Mike Pederson instead of, I don't know, me, giving a presentation.

Improvements like this can only have a positive affect on the organization in the long run. Improvement in clinics and customer service (ie, getting certificates done quickly) leads to more members, which leads to more funds and manpower, which means more improvements. As a former USFCA Secretary I've been an advocate for years now of having the Secretary and Treasurer be paid positions (or hire a separate business who specializes in that sort of thing do the work) in order to reduce stress on the volunteers, improve service, and have a permanant office address for the USFCA. Hopefully in time the improvements in the USFCA over the last few years will one day lead to this.

I'd also like to say that the conference this summer was the best one I have attended, and I think I've been to 6 or 7 now. It had the most attendees, excellent presentations, and an excellent venue. The format for the clinic had side by side low level and high level presentations each day and the presentatios were covered all three weapons, which meant that it was worth attending the whole conference for most coaches.

[Allen Evans]

Actually, Paul, I was talking about the change in the USFA memberhip class.

But thanks for your post. I'm sorry I missed the summer conference, but I couldn't get the additional time off after Nationals.

[oiuyt]

I'd also like to say that the conference this summer was the best one I have attended, and I think I've been to 6 or 7 now. It had the most attendees, excellent presentations, and an excellent venue. The format for the clinic had side by side low level and high level presentations each day and the presentatios were covered all three weapons, which meant that it was worth attending the whole conference for most coaches.

Any notes available for those of us who were unable to attend?

Do you know of any plans to post either materials or, ideally, video from the presentations to the USFCA website?

-B

[pjsise1]

Notes and video - this was one of the things we discussed actually. There were plans to put notes and video on the website for members only. When will it get done? Will it get done? It is all very easy to say "Yes, this is a grea idea, let's do it!" when everyone is excited and together... but these things unfortunately take more time than they should. I'll send an email or two to remind people about this.

[oiuyt]

Do you have notes?

-B

[pjsise1]

I have a handout or two as well as a few scribbled pencil notes. I was in my gear working a lot and didn't didn't really write much. I'll go through them and email you something. I imagine that there will be a writeup in the next Swordmaster too.

[michaelheggen]

As a former USFCA Secretary I've been an advocate for years now of having the Secretary and Treasurer be paid positions (or hire a separate business who specializes in that sort of thing do the work) in order to reduce stress on the volunteers, improve service, and have a permanant office address for the USFCA. Hopefully in time the improvements in the USFCA over the last few years will one day lead to this.

I have been thinking this, too. Good to hear a former USFCA officer confirming it.

See also this thread: USFA vs USFCA membership for American Fencing Coaches

-Mike

[darius]

Notes and video - this was one of the things we discussed actually. There were plans to put notes and video on the website for members only. When will it get done? Will it get done? It is all very easy to say "Yes, this is a grea idea, let's do it!" when everyone is excited and together... but these things unfortunately take more time than they should. I'll send an email or two to remind people about this.

If you want to find a way to encourage membership, this type of thing would add value to it. I suspect that people who might not otherwise be motivated by the USFCA's "certification!" message would be quite interested if they got access to an online video library.

I know I'd be more motivated to keep my membership current.

darius

[Allen Evans]

Agreed. The USFCA should understand that it can't just be in the certification business, but should be in the information business. I think I've made that point a couple of times on F.net.

However, there seems to be a real abhorrence by all coaches (USFCA or not) to write things down, use video, or any othe sort of information transmission system. Coaching information is still being passed along by personal contact and word of mouth. That might be fine in, say, a country the size of Lichtenstein, but I think US Coaching would benefit from using some of our great technology to spread knowlege, even imperfectly, though a wider base.

[MdA]

...... As a former USFCA Secretary I've been an advocate for years now of having the Secretary and Treasurer be paid positions (or hire a separate business who specializes in that sort of thing do the work) in order to reduce stress on the volunteers, improve service, and have a permanant office address for the USFCA. Hopefully in time the improvements in the USFCA over the last few years will one day lead to this.
......

You no longer need to be certified to be a Full-Member in the USFCA. This means you get voting rights and can hold office. This is a step in the right direction and I mentioned in the other thread on memberships....we need to swing the votes on the Executive Committee to get these things done.

Salem needs your help. Nominations?

[thefiftyniner]

Has anyone managed / thought about putting up on YouTube the videos (from the USOC goodie bag) mentioned on http://stabbing-westward.blogspot.com/ Sunday, July 19, 2009 posting

[darius]

There's a rights issue there. NBC owns the Olympic footage, and they're extremely protective of it ... even if they didn't use the footage at all. Not even the USOC broadcast team can do the things they want to do, because they have to negotiate the legal issues.

I spoke with them about how easy it would be for NBC to make that footage available to sports NGBs or the USOC for research purposes for a small fee (which is more than they make on it now); after all, they've already recouped the advertising dollars and those archives are doing nothing for them. I was told that such conversations had taken place, but NBC has no interest.

On top of that, the videos are (were?) available online in a nice format for a pretty long time... the feeds on NBCOlympics.com were nice!

darius