USFA vs USFCA membership for American Fencing Coaches

[MdA]

I am starting a new thread from the following since the other thread has drifted…

Darius blogging from PASO

Brad has identified that the USFA and the USFCA have many similar goals and objective for fencing coaches in the USA.

So the question is….Why should an American coach pay $50 to the USFA for a Coach membership and another $50 to the USFCA for a “full-membership?

As Brad says below…

“Now clearly there are coaches who aren't (USFA) members. My solution is that we (USFA) 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.”

I said the following

“Membership (USFA and USFCA) should be a “no-brainer” for most coaches interested in self-improvement….” But is that true? Are American coaches just cutting corners?

The USFA insurance Liability coverage should be an obvious reason for coaches and their clubs to join the USFA….but that obviously is not enough for some coaches…personally, I would never cross blades with a student without insurance coverage…in the past, I paid the extra $100/yr on the USFA plan….perhaps some coaches think that if their club is covered by the USFA, they don’t need to be members....or perhaps coaches with no assets aren't worried.

I also don’t think it is a good idea for the USFCA to duplicate the insurance liability coverage that is already provided by the USFA.

Now here is an area for possible cooperation between both organizations. Why doesn’t the USFA offer an $85 Coach Membership…which automatically gets the coach a USFCA membership? The coach is automatically enrolled in both organizations…gets his insurance….access to both organizations’ training, education, and certification….all at a $15 savings.

The USFA and USFCA could split the membership fee at $42.50 each….and they can operate from a combined membership database which would eliminate a duplicated effort. Instead of two applications, an American coach only needs to do one

[JEC]

How do you deal with Life members in either (but not both) organizations?

[Allen Evans]

Interesting idea. But a good idea?

1. Who is responsible for sending out renewal reminders? And the overhead associated with tracking those members and their addresses?

2. Who is responsible for administering and reconciling the forwarding of fees to the USFCA?

3. Who is responsible for responding to membership inqueries? THe USFA or the USFCA?

4. In ten years time, who decides which organization eats the other?

I've had more than my share of complaints about the USFCA, but I don't think this is a wise path to move down if you wish to preserve USFCA independence. And I do think it's worth preserving.

[Downtown]

Just because there are problems that need to be worked out does not make it a bad idea.

[Allen Evans]

But at some point, the effort necessary to turn a "bad idea" into a "good idea" would better be served by a "better idea".

What's the goal of combining USFCA membership with USFA membership? To drive membership in both organizations? To avoid the USFCA being forced to duplicate some benefits the USFA offers?

Here's a slightly better idea that might help these goals: "Members of the USFCA are given a $10 discount on USFA Coaching Competitive Membership in the USFA". The USFCA could offer the same discount to USFA members.

This might drive the same purpose without putting an burdon on the USFA to track these combined memberships and reduce the administrative burden over all, while still accomplishing the same goals.

[oiuyt]

Interestingly, US Fencing has 2-3 times as many coach members as the USFCA does. I don't have an easy way of checking to see how much overlap there is between the two groups. There are plenty of coaches out there that aren't members of either, which is either an opportunity or a problem (depending on one's approach) that ought to be addressed by each.

I like Allen's suggestion of a discounted cross-promotion deal. It still needs careful thought about what happens in year 2 and probably other areas.

US Fencing is currently looking at a number of different ways of restructuring membership classes, including potentially reworking coach memberships. Any plan beyond a simple discount, such as Allen's, would likely need to take into account whatever format we're moving to, rather than what we've done in the past.

-B
Life member in both US Fencing and USFCA

[Allen Evans]

Interestingly, US Fencing has 2-3 times as many coach members as the USFCA does.

I'm sure that you had a point to make quoting that statistic, but I'm not quite sure what it was (especially considering that the USFCA has about 500 members to the USFA's 22,000, which makes any comparison a little hazy).

Hmmm...restructuring membership classes in the USFA? Perhaps this would be a good test of cooperation with the USFCA by sharing some of that information with the USFCA Board and seeing it there are areas of mutual interest and cooperation if a new membership class is formed -- or the USFA modifies the current coaching membership.

In fact the USFA and USFCA should form a working group to cooperate on sharing information and looking for other areas of overlap and cooperation (such as the Coaching Insurance question) in general.

[oiuyt]

I'm sure that you had a point to make quoting that statistic, but I'm not quite sure what it was

I'M not sure I had a point. :)

Happened to run across it recently, so tossed it in.

That US Fencing has nearly as many clubs as we do coaches is a good indication that we're not getting good coverage*. That US Fencing has considerably more coaches than the USFCA is a good indication that neither is the USFCA. Systems such as cross-selling memberships could help both, but the key really is getting all of the thousands of coaches who aren't members of either to join one or both.

-B

* Given that most clubs have multiple coaches and the number of fencing groups out there which aren't club members of US Fencing.

[Allen Evans]

Excellant, some numbers that actually seem to tell a story. Very interesting sort of "order of magnitude" estimation of the number of coaches in the US. It might be interesting, however, to look at some of the small clubs and see if the "head fencer" at the club really considers themselves a "coach" -- which might be part of the problem.

So:

Identifying coaches currently teaching fencing in the US would seem to be a goal.

Identifying coaches who aren't members of either group (USFA or USFCA) would seem to be a goal.

Finding out why non-members don't feel the need to be members of either the USFA or USFCA would also seem to be important.

As a whole, it doesn't seem that the USFCA or the USFA keeps very good track of their coaches, besides what their current membership roster is. That might also be important, to find out why coaching members have left or are no longer active.

Perhaps with this information, a plan could start to be made to raise coaching memberships in the USFA and USFCA.

edit:

Let me change that last sentence: "Perhaps with this information, a plan could start to be made to offer services and benefits to coaches that would raise coaching memberships in the USA and USFCA".

Simply "raising membership numbers" to me, is not a good goal.

[MdA]

Great ideas….

These are the 2 most import goals…as long as we agree that it is a beneficial to increase coach memberships in both organizations.

1. Increase service and benefits to all member coaches
2. Make the membership application to both seamless and easy

It should work as long as members are getting increased service and benefits at a reasonable price.

Services provided by the USFA
1. Liability Insurance
2. American Fencing Magazine
3. Coaches College
4. Access to other special Coaching clinics, Blackstar, PASO, etc.
5. Able to serve on USFA boards and committees, hold office, national coaching staffs, official contingents, etc
6. Participate in competitions (competitive membership)
7. USFA Newsletters, email, etc.
8. USFA Website, schedules dates, info, lodging,
9. USOC/FIE info, clinics, awards, etc

Services provided by the USFCA
1. Swordmaster magazine
2. Email newsletter
3. Annual Coaching Conference and Annual General Meeting (AGM)
4. Regional Coaching Clinics
5. Ability to Host USFCA Clinics, issue certificates of attendance
6. Able to serve on USFCA boards and committees hold office, etc
7. USFCA website, archive, other documents ( this could be combined with USFA at some point to conserve cost)
8. Job postings/lists
9. International certification (AAI)
10. Info on international coaching clinics (AAI)
11. Coach of the Year awards, other special awards like USFCA Fellow, etc
12. NCAA fencing info

[DangerMouse]

I realize Allen's question of why coaches choose not to join the USFA or USFCA is geared toward an understanding of the dynamics of the group as a whole, but here's my personal experience.

I am a young coach of a university club. I do not coach professionally, but would like to some day as an adjunct to my professional carreer. Being associated with a university, I have no need of liability and insurance coverage provided by either organization since the university provides both. Other than this coverage, I'm not sure what a coaching membership with the USFA would provide (I do have a competitive membership).

The only benefit I am aware membership in the USFCA would provide me is access to the theses. If I had the money, I would gladly pay for this access, but as a graduate student I simply can't afford to. I also would be more likely to go through the USFCA accredidation process than the USFA version. This is simply because I perceive the USFCA process as more flexible for coaches who have obtained their education elsewhere or through non-traditional means. For example, I have taken coaches training seminars in Hungary as well as worked one on one with a few individual coaches, but nothing regular. As an accademic and professor in training, I have a lot of teaching experience in general as well as coaching another sport. I definitely need more fencing specific coaching instruction, but do not need to start from the beginning of coaches college, etc.

A little rambling, but the gist is that either the organizations provide minimal utility to me as a small club coach, or I am UNAWARE of the utility they provide.

Edit: Well, I guess now I am aware of the services they provide, most of which are not particularly useful to a volunteer coach in a small club. I would love to attend these various seminars, but most of the ones that are nearby are geared toward basic instruction and duplicate my existing education.

[MdA]

I think the USFCA could operate similar to the FOC within the USFA…so there is already a precedent for how this might work.

…a subset of the USFA membership with a special focus
…with its own officers – semi-independent but with the same major organizational goals
…and in the case of the USFCA, some independent finances

[Allen Evans]

Wow. MdA, pretty big leap there. I like your analysis of what's possible in a hybrid USFA/USFCA except for the last: "...some independant finances..." I simply don't think that this is a wise idea. What gets raided when the USFA budget get's squeezed?

I'm also not sure what the AAI would think of such a partnership, do you?

Listing the "benefits" that each organization currently provides is a nice exercise, but obviously, those benefits are not attracting coaches like DM. What more needs to be done to attract this type of coach (I'm convinced that coaches like DM make up most of Brad's "missing" coaches from each organization)? Who is asking this question in each organization?

[Jason]

What more needs to be done to attract this type of coach (I'm convinced that coaches like DM make up most of Brad's "missing" coaches from each organization)? Who is asking this question in each organization?

That is, in fact, the important question. Combining the two memberships may be a cute idea but it really adds very little value to either. I image that neither group would gain many members from the marriage (although the USFCA would likely be the bigger winner).

Rather than reshuffling what is already there, each organization needs to think about what it can add.

[MdA]

Wow. MdA, pretty big leap there. I like your analysis of what's possible in a hybrid USFA/USFCA except for the last: "...some independant finances..." I simply don't think that this is a wise idea. What gets raided when the USFA budget get's squeezed?

I'm also not sure what the AAI would think of such a partnership, do you?

Listing the "benefits" that each organization currently provides is a nice exercise, but obviously, those benefits are not attracting coaches like DM. What more needs to be done to attract this type of coach (I'm convinced that coaches like DM make up most of Brad's "missing" coaches from each organization)? Who is asking this question in each organization?

This is really not a new idea for me. I proposed this to a few USFA/USFCA insiders a couple years ago and got the full broadside from both sides (guns-a-blazing). Pirate

Many firms form partnerships and alliances (look at the airlines)…and they keep their funds separated. Contracts will need to be created and both organizations have enough attorneys (members) to figure it out.

The AAI is an organization of Fencing Masters for Fencing Masters. As long as we maintain an independent Certification and Accreditation Board (CAB) which is the reformed (1982) United States Academy of Arms (USAA). The USAA was fully subsumed within the USFCA. The CAB must continue to be made up of only certified Fencing Masters and conform to the international standards for certifying FMs. The CAB must maintain independence from the USFA Executive Board. We may want to check with the Italian Academy on this one….I think they have tried every possible combination of organizations within and without of their national federation….including two different Coaches Associations….how’s that for a duplication of effort? Since the USA is moving up in international fencing….it may be time for us to complicate our organizational relationships….like the other nations.

The CAB and the benefits to FMs can only be a small part of what the new USFA/USFCA should offer American coaches. Coaches like DM are looking for other services that support their situation. One of the most important benefits for DM is to provide a voice for them to the administration of both organizations. My experience is that many coaches only join the USFCA when they are interested in training or certification. Once they achieve their goals in these two areas….or get disillusioned….they drift away.

To attract coaches like DM….we need to continue to do what we are doing in this thread….point out the benefits of remaining engaged in training, education, and certification over a longer period of time. It is enjoyable and rewarding.

As for JECs question about Life Memberships….we can’t assume that a person wants to be a Life member of both organizations. We would need to ask them…some type of application form. We also can’t assume the Life Membership paid to one organization will cover the cost of maintaining a Life Member in the other. I suggest some way of offering a pro-rated Life Membership for those that want to be members of both….possibly base on the number of years they have been a LM in the other….this would reduce the cost of assuming the other organization’s LMs.

Under 10 years - $500
Over 10 years - $250
Over 20 years – Free

…and for those that want to maintain their Life Membership in one…and go year-to-year in the other….offer them the discounted $42.50 yearly membership.

[MdA]

.... I image that neither group would gain many members from the marriage (although the USFCA would likely be the bigger winner).

Rather than reshuffling what is already there, each organization needs to think about what it can add.

Your right the USFCA may gain more members....but this could be a win/win. The USFA could expend less resources duplicating services the USFCA already provides....it would be like contracting out education, training, and certification.....along with representative government (for coaches)....to the USFCA.

[qatet]

On a barely related note, but since you're talking about memberships and life memberships here... I think that the USFA's incremental life membership is a fabulous idea and would be thrilled if the USFCA were to follow suit.

[DangerMouse]

To attract coaches like DM….we need to continue to do what we are doing in this thread….point out the benefits of remaining engaged in training, education, and certification over a longer period of time. It is enjoyable and rewarding.

Anyone who takes teaching/coaching seriously is likely to recognize these benefits. For me, the issue is that there are very few opportunities to further my coaching education each year and the few that are out there are:
1) too far away to be cost effective
2) too low level to provide any real use
3) too poorly organized (ie coaches college being canceled last minute) to risk what little money I have to put toward this.

I fully realize that there is a very limited market, but I think both organizations, if they wish to expand membership to coaches like me, need to put a stronger emphasis on a reliable, structured educational model. Coach's College has had organizational issues the past couple years and that does not instill confidence that I will get my money's worth if I register. Also, having worked with numerous coaches around the world, I have yet to encounter a high quality coach who is a product of Coach's College.

The USFCA clinics I have seen advertised sound great, but they are too far away or focused on low level instruction. More importantly, if I attend one clinic, there is no clear next step. When will the next level clinic be offered? Where will it be? What will it cover?

Finally, cost is a significant factor in development. As a low level volunteer coach I don't have much money to put toward professional development. I have to choose between coaching development and fencing training. This is a choice a lot of people in my position face. I had the money a few years ago to go to one a training camp during the summer and a few of my friends were planning to go as well. We decided on two options: coaches college for two sessions, or Solti-Szabo in Hungary. These don't really seem like comparable choices, but in the end we discovered that going to Hungary and attending the Solti-Szabo camp was about the same cost as two sessions of coaches college. The Solti-Szabo camp offered two training sessions a day, private lessons with a variety of coaches, and one two hour coach's training session each day. I attended the coaching sessions as well as the fencing session (skipped lunch a few times, showed up late to fencing sessions a few times) and got a lesson a day. Overall, for a great value for my money. Perhaps the USFA or USFCA should offer an event like this where you can work on your coaching skills and fencing skills at the same time, or focus on one or the other.

[qatet]

Riffing off of DangerMouse, has there ever been a discussion of having coaching clinics the morning after a NAC? Yes, there are problems with this idea - taking a day off from work, not everybody goes to NACs, having to chaperone kids back home, etc. Still, how many other opportunities are there where coaches are already together. I'd hate to add it on to Nationals, since everybody's ready to get the heck out of Dodge by the time that beast is over, but NACs aren't quite so long and painful.

[Allen Evans]

I wouldn't necessarily undervalue Coaches College. I can think of several very good coaches off the top of my head that are (mostly) products of Coaches College, and the Level 3 and 4 courses that I've taken there have been head and shoulders above many of the USFCA presentations I've been able to attend.

With all of that said, I think the US could easily support more coaching clinics and more regular, regional coaching clinics, offered with a lot of advance notice and in areas not usually serviced by seminars. Again, this comes down to finding out where the "silent majority" of coaches are and trying to reach out to them. This would be a great role for the USFCA, with some help from the USFA.