Regarding the “2020 Recruitment” @SevenDad referenced, here is the actual title of the thread (it took me a while to find it):
Crowd-Sourced Data About 2020 Collegiate Incoming Fencers
Happy perusing! and thanks @SevenDad for all the work!
Thanks @SpaceVoyager…that thread should be pinned (appear at top of thread list in “Athletic Recruits” subforum) at least if viewed on a computer browser.
@purplevine2021 since your kid’s already emailed I’d let them resend an email as Chelsea wrote. My son did all the communicating by email, at NACs, at informal visits. I’m sure it’s not the only way but I do think that the application/recruitment process is an important growth experience for them. Moreover, the coaches are recruiting team members not parents so maybe the more they interact with the kid the better they can envision the fit.
Also coaches were very heterogeneous in their responses. Some right away, some never, some with canned responses, some very personalized. I’m sure the responses also depend on the kids fencing and academic accomplishments.
I’d suggest trying again with a diplomatic email about how busy they must be and here is some new info about a good fencing or academic result. Also with JOs coming up adding that the kid will be there (if true) and hopes to find the coach if they are there to say hello.
I’m realizing that not everyone can see the “pinned” thread on 2020 Recruiting…to make it easier for people, here’s the link:
Click on the link in post #14 in that thread for the first report of 2020. I want to contain any links to hosted PDFs to that thread, as we got a special variance for that specific thread and I don’t want to break any CC rules.
sherpa, chelsea and helmut, thank you so much for all of your input. I learnt a lot from here. My kid is now a HS junior, he began to email coaches since last Sep. and updated whenever there was a new fencing or academic result. He got some responses, but basically was told by all coaches that it was still early. Considering JO is coming, he wishes he can get some idea about his recruitablity from his dream school’s coach first, unfortunately, he didn’t get reply for the recent several emails. Probably this means my kid’s chance isn’t great, but he doesn’t want to give up yet.
@purplevine2021 : Are you thinking at all about visiting any of the schools, just as an unofficial visit or general visit that any college junior would do? I wouldn’t suggest doing this solely to get the attention of a coach, but if it were in your plans anyway, that could potentially be a good opportunity. As many have said, you want to make sure that the school(s) you are targeting are a good fit academically and otherwise. Of course not everyone has the time or financial resources to do campus visits, but if you were planning to, definitely let the coaches know.
The other thing that might be going on is that coaches are recruiting their top picks from the uppermost echelons of the recruiting pool and waiting to see which ones commit (at least verbally) before seeing how many additional slots they have.
Good luck!
As a general rule, I would not interject myself as a parent between my child and a prospective college coach. All of the character assessments made by coaches in determining recruits are exhibited through interactions during the recruitment process. This can be as simple as personal chemistry to a sense of the longer-term commitment of the recruit to fence for the team. It is the recruit’s opportunity to demonstrate maturity and eloquence on their own behalf.
This thread is rife with stories of coaches who respond late, unclearly or not at all. As @SpaceVoyager notes, very often it comes down to waiting your turn. The coaches at the most competitive schools will generally start with the top 5-10 in each weapon/gender. Everyone outside of this will usually not be prioritized in terms of responses to email or other contact. This is not because a particular candidate is not viable. He or she is just not in the initial wave. Don’t be discouraged by this. It is, as you have come to realize, very early.
Agree strongly with @SpaceVoyager that, time and finances permitting, it is a very smart and useful thing to visit the schools, both to see/feel the campus as well as to visit fencing facilities and perhaps even run into the coach. You may also use an unofficial campus visit as an excuse to reach out again to a coach to advise him/her that you will be on campus at a certain time if he or she is available to meet.
Thanks again! I will pass your suggestions to DS and let him decide what to do next.
I receive numerous PMs inquiring about how NCAA individual and team rankings work. Leaving aside the former for a much broader conversation, team rankings are updated, as they are for other NCAA sports, throughout the regular season. Other than for bragging rights or perhaps some fun analysis, these standings are absolutely meaningless. Fencing programs are not vying for “bowl” invitations or invites to the Sweet 16. The most competitive teams in NCAA fencing have pretty much always been the same (certainly over the past 20 years or so and, yes, I know St. John’s won one about 2 decades ago): Columbia, Harvard & Princeton among the Ivies; OSU, Notre Dame, and PSU, among the “big box” schools. Regular season tournaments are test-runs for these top teams which are often works-in-progress. Injuries, gap years (e.g., during Olympic qualifying seasons), and the evolution of individual fencers very often determines the final berths to Regionals and, ultimately, to NCAA Championships. There will be anomalous results on occasion, due in part I believe to the much greater uncertain 5-touch format, but also because the top teams and their fencers are “working it out” in these regular season events. There will also be individual stand-outs on less competitive teams. Finally, there will also be inflated results in less competitive tournaments. In the end, for those who attend NCAA Championships, it will be an opportunity to watch great fencers, in all weapons, from most schools. However, it will probably be Columbia, Notre Dame and Penn State vying for the top spot.
Speaking of college fencing, news from the Ivy League this past weekend:
Anyone headed to JOs this weekend? We’ll be there pretty much all day on Saturday. If you see an old dude in Lawrence University gear, that’ll almost certainly be me.
For those already competing in college, or for those who really enjoy following/watching NCAA fencing, the pinnacle of the season is coming with NCAA Regionals in the West, Midwest, Mid-Atlantic/South, and Northeast. 24 fencers in each gender/weapon will gain berths to the NCAA Championships in Detroit at the end of March. Berths are allocated among the regions with roughly 35% to the Northeast, 30% from the MA/South, 20% coming from the Midwest, and 15% allocated to the West. There are 2 “At-Large” berths available for each gender/weapon. This provides a catch-all for competitive fencers who may have had a bad day at their regionals or otherwise missed qualifying. It also provides an opportunity to spread the wealth a bit and allow for competitive fencers from less competitive programs to have a shot at NCAAs. The Midwest and West Regionals are pretty small, with the ultimate qualifiers and NCAA berths pretty baked-in. The NE and MA/South are exceedingly competitive, arguably even more so than NCAAs. This is because, with multiple pools a fencer can fence as many bouts as he or she will fence in NCAAs, but all in ONE DAY! Grueling. In any case, this is our “March Madness”, folks. Enjoy the show!
To quickly follow up on BrooklynRye’s post #1331, I’ve heard some All-Americans say that Regionals is even harder than the Championship…because it’s all in one day. To even make it to the final pool (the “pool of death”…seriously, look back at who is in those pools) in the NE or MA/South regions is quite an accomplishment.
I hadn’t really looked at the “pool of death”. Just a cursory look at NE men’s epee from last year shows an enormous amount of close bouts, lots of 5-4’s and 5-3’s. Brutal day.
@chelsea465 - By the 3rd round of pools, the fencers are totally exhausted. In our years of experience, fencers are collapsing on the strip, whether from muscle cramps or just sheer exhaustion. Lots of sloppy fencing as everyone is kind of at their physical max-out.
A few observations as my daughter’s second season of NCAA play enters its final weeks.
Dual meets are a funny thing:
I say this because there are so many variables that can influence the outcome of a head-to-head 27-bout team match.
In scanning online results or team news updates/posts, you might see that Team X beat a higher-ranked Team Y. But what you might not know is that Team Y fenced mostly their reserves. Or maybe they had a few squad members at a Junior or Senior World Cup and used a foilist to fence saber just to avoid 3 (or 6!) automatic forfeits. So one should always take “upsets” with at least one grain of salt unless you have seen the bout sheets (and are familiar with the fencers involved) or watched the match in person. More on a specific example of this below.
Another funny thing is that the transitive property does not always apply. Meaning that just because Team X beat Team Y and Team Y beat Team Z — this does not mean Team X could/should/will beat Team Z on a given day. That’s just not how it works.
On rankings vs. dual results records vs. the NCAA championship:
BrooklynRye offered some commentary on this already, but I’ve got my own take.
For starters…the CollegeFencing360 Coaches Poll matters more to the teams that aren’t going be contenders for the overall NCAA championship. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. If Team A has never been ranked in the Top 10, and they get ranked there based on a strong frosh recruiting class or performance in duals — more power to them.
Likewise, if Team A has never beaten Team B in a dual (or if it’s been a while) and they get that elusive win…again, by all means, take some joy and pride in that. With the caveats I mention above, of course. Beating the Princeton women’s epee squad at a meet where they only fielded one actual epeeist is nothing to brag about. Unless of course, it was accomplished by a similarly depleted squad.
The National Championship and the regional meets (especially the NE and Mid-Atlantic South regions) are, unquestionably, the biggest prizes in the NCAA fencing season. The team goal of Regionals is qualifying the max number of fencers for the Championship and the team goal of the Championships is winning the most individual bouts.
As Brooklyn Rye noted, recent history has shown that only a handful of teams qualify enough fencers to realistically vie for the overall title. Which is why I really have no problem in teams outside this small group taking pride in other accomplishments over the course of a season — whether that be a high ranking or a great dual meet record. For some teams, having a winning season or a Top 10 ranking WILL be their high-water mark for that year. They have every right to feel good about it — to celebrate it, even. After all we can’t all be Columbia or Notre Dame (the winners of the last 5 team championships). 
Other quick-hit observations:
- One thing that definitely goes on at duals is “coaches getting their fencers bouts” so that an individual fencer has enough bouts (and a high enough win percentage) to qualify for Regionals. With larger squads, this can be an issue.
- Always interesting to see teams gunning for/taking particular delight in beating certain fencers. These tend to be the “big names” in each weapon/gender. If the fencer is also on a “big name” team (and they generally are), beating that fencer could be the only bright spot in what will likely be a lopsided team loss…so I see no problem in taking some joy in winning a 5-touch bout (something that would seem inconsequential at a NAC).
- Man, there are some GREAT Div III fencers. This season (maybe more than last?) I’ve seen many D3 fencers taking bouts off their D1 counterparts…in all weapons/genders. So prospective recruits should definitely give these schools a shot...especially if they are strong in a fencer's desired field of study.
I’ll add some commentary here as well, from the dad of a D who is at one of those Div 1 schools that’s perennially in the top 10, but isn’t typically qualifying the max number of fencers per weapon/gender for nationals. This may be controversial, but fencing dot net doesn’t exist for controversial posts any more, so I’ll post this here 
I’ll say it out loud: NCAA fencing is an odd sport, and I don’t like that the NCAA Nationals with 2 fencers per gender/weapon fencing largely as individuals define the national champion. I also don’t like that there’s a single combined men’s / women’s championship when 25% of the collegiate fencing schools only field a women’s team. It’s a disservice to powerhouse women’s only teams, like Northwestern.
Throughout the season, fencing is treated as a team sport. You need to have depth of field for injuries (or in the case of some schools, fencers doing other international events instead of team events) and the right mix of people to win duals. Then suddenly, March comes along and it becomes more of an individual sport.
Think about football or basketball in comparison: it matters if your star quarterback or your star shooter are injured right up until bowl games or March Madness. If your team loses enough games, you won’t be ranked as high, and you won’t be in the national championship bowl game or March Madness.
NCAA fencing isn’t like that. For the “regular season” of duals, you could have a school like ND, Columbia, or Ohio State literally lose every event against every top 10 team, but as long as their two superstar Olympian/Olympic hopeful performers in each gender/weapon get enough bouts in to quality for regionals, that team can go on and be national champion. Their team results in the regular season don’t really matter. I believe technically a team could be NCAA Nationals champions with an incomplete squad of two fencers per weapon/gender on their roster all season.
So, ultimately, is NCAA fencing a team sport, or an individual sport? I think it depends on who you are and for which team you fence. For most of the 40+ NCAA schools, it’s solidly a team sport. And that’s a good thing! There’s a real sense of team partnership, and it’s a welcome change of the solitary grind of NACs and international events. For these schools, the win/loss record in duals really matter.
But for about 5 or so schools plus a few individuals at other schools, NCAA fencing is an odd hybrid of individual/team sport where team results matter somewhat, but in many cases individual fencers are working as individuals to qualify for and win NCAA nationals for their weapon/gender.
I’ll end by saying I LOVE the team nature of collegiate fencing. It’s way more enjoyable to see a sideline of 15 or more teammates cheering as a team for that 13-13 tie-breaker bout. The ‘we win or lose as a team’ mentality of duals is a lot of fun to watch.
FWIW, the format of the NCAA championship(s) is also on the mind of the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Fencing Committee:
“5. Championships structure. The committee continued to discuss the possibility of having separate team champions for each gender and reviewed various models that have been suggested. The committee does see how this could be beneficial to those institutions that sponsor just one gender. They also were sure to consider the “unintended consequences” of making this change, such as the possibility of the continued growth, or disbanding, of programs by the membership occurring in just one gender and possibly having to decrease the number of student-athletes per gender that compete at the championships due to the change. It was also pointed out by a number of the members that for those programs that do have larger representation at the championships, their men’s and women’s programs see themselves as one team, as opposed to separate. The committee agreed to table this discussion, as the current benefits of the championships model outweighs any possible changes that may come from splitting the championships.”
This is from the committee’s 2019 annual report, which can be found here - http://www.ncaa.org/championships/national-collegiate-fencing
Good luck to those competing JOs this weekend. Hopefully, some of you (or your parents) will provide all of us with your insights on recruiting-related activity at the event.
@EmptyNester2016 It’s nice that this was considered. And I find the conclusion disappointing.
In plain English, I read this as Ohio State, Penn St, Notre Dame, Columbia, and Princeton said “We generally qualify 2 in most weapons in both genders every year, and we like it the way it is.”
I don’t completely buy the “we see ourselves as one team at championships” message, as less 25% of the team (sometimes much less) gets to go to championships. In how many college sports does a “team” make it to the finals, but only a 10% of their roster actually goes? That’s not a team sport anymore.
Thinking outside the box, I’d rather see finals that are team events, as that’s how the teams compete all year. It is a team sport, after all. They could keep individual weapon champions as well, but just not have those be a monster pool of 24 that takes 2 days to complete.
One last add: Wouldn’t it be nice if the top Div II & Div III teams (based on some stats-based strength of schedule and regular season duals results) got together and had a Div 2/3 champion team event? As @SevenDad pointed out, there are some real quality Div 3 teams with full rosters and solid school support, but these schools are pretty much totally left out of NCAA championships given the current structure.
Maybe if there was a penultimate Div2/3 event, more high school fencers would consider continuing in college at the Div 2/3 level.