Please understand that I’m not discounting academics and the importance of that. I can speak for my D whose choice was made due to a combination of academic fit AND fencing fit. The college experience he wanted included both. We’re already looking at a greatly reduced academic experience with many classes being online (although first years can live on campus). To eliminate the fencing experience (which has not been decided at this point, to our knowledge) would be another big blow. All of this added together creates a limited experience that might be best deferred until things improve.
Brown = Canary; Stanford = Coal Mine
Perhaps it’s time to re-think the way that non-revenue, “Olympic” sports are financed at the collegiate level - and to scale back the number of schools that have varsity teams. Based purely on distance and travel costs, Stanford is located so far away from other schools with competitive programs, it makes very little economic sense for that university to compete in “east coast sports” (e.g., fencing and squash). The same concept applies to east coast schools competing in water polo, for example.
If USA Fencing committed to support (i.e., help underwrite) fencing programs at Ivy League schools, would Brown reinstate its program on the theory that it would remain part of the sport’s power conference & possibly become a feeder to the U.S. national team?
Or has Stanford told the world, “Universities are businesses, and our business has other goals that are more important than non-revenue varsity teams. Unless someone underwrites ALL of these expenses in perpetuity, we’re done with fencing, squash, etc.”?
This may be starting in the world of athletics, but it will eventually snowball into other areas - e.g., summer research for students, study abroad, need blind admissions, etc. Just wait until the stock market drops without immediately bouncing back.
Hi EmptyNester!
My understanding, at least at big box schools, is that most non-revenue sports, and even some smaller revenue ones, are ultimately funded by football. At last count, Penn State had the most NCAA sports teams. Except for basketball (which I believe breaks even), Penn State football sponsors all the rest. There is already a division among funding sources for niche sports, mostly split between university funding and alumni contributions.
IMHO, I think this goes beyond funding. In the case of Brown, for instance, I think there has always been an enthusiasm gap and a lack of administration appreciation and support for the team, dating way before the current circumstances.
If the primary issue for Stanford was its geographic distance and the accompanying costs of competing, the program would have been gone long ago. In any case, other than for NCAAs, Stanford does not normally travel East to compete during the regular season, and I doubt their fencing expenses are particularly burdensome.
In terms of commitment to the sport, Stanford is also notable among elite academic institutions for generally not giving “recruitment” benefit to athlete applicants. Yes, there is the legendary “pink letter” and I am sure the Olympic fencers get an edge, but for the most part you are on your own. So, in each of these cases, there is probably a lot more than finances and the current situation at work.
USA Fencing has only recently more fully engaged with NCAA Fencing, e.g., attempting to avoid conflicts between national tournaments and NCAA events. However, this is a nascent work in progress and hardly to the point where USA Fencing can be looked to for funding. Besides, this is kind of ridiculous when looking at the limited funds of the national organization versus the billions of dollars in endowments possessed by the universities.
Unlike football and basketball, the NCAA is not a “feeder” to USA Fencing and Team USA. In fact, the reverse is true. The top fencing recruits are already well known, successful, elite athletes in their sport. These include world champions and even Olympic fencers. It is because of this success, combined with academic excellence, that they are recruited. The NCAA schools may benefit from the PR and may even take credit in some cases, but the top fencers are coming in at a high level already.
Again, in my opinion, I do not think that research, study abroad or “need blind admissions” (whatever that really means), are in danger of massive cuts in financing. This is not ultimately about money. It is about priorities.
Sorry to be a nit-picker @BrooklynRye but those of us in the mid-west (where Evanston, IL is) do consider ourselves a fair bit east of California. Now, I’m not saying I disagree with your other points, I just disagree on geography.
Point taken…lol. Forgot that Stanford does venture to the Midwest.
I agree with this being about priorities and as a non-revenue generating sport Fencing is in a weak position. The impact for the sport and the US global dominance is going to be felt. Removal of “the carrot” of college recruitment and continued high level college training is going to change the number of people willing to be in the sport. The amount of time and resources it takes to become a high level fencer has been - for some - justified in its value proposition because of the ability to gain a “hook” into elite colleges. Now two such elite schools have removed their programs. Are colleges making a statement with regards to their role in nurturing and providing opportunities for Olympic sport athletes? The USA is the only country that relies on the colleges to perform this role. All other elite countries in olympic sports have government supported funding for their olympic hopefuls and rely on a club model or centralized government model (France) to keep the pipeline robust. We have seen a major boost in the numbers in the USA in fencing in the last decade. I feel we could be seeing the writing on the wall and sadly it is not good.
I think we must differentiate between the recruitment carrot, as you so aptly put it, and the continuing aspirations of high-level fencers.
Regarding the former, I agree totally. There is no doubt that many parents/kids come to a niche sport such as fencing with an eye on college recruitment. Knowing that slots are diminished, is not a good incentive.
However, with respect to the Olympics, for example, college fencing has very little to do with this. There is cross-pollination with some college coaches, e.g., Bucky Leach at Notre Dame as the National Women’s Foil Coach, and other coaches who are personal coaches for top fencers. But the top fencers are training for the Olympics and World Championships primarily outside, with personal coaches. This may not always be possible, e.g., Olympic fencers at Notre Dame, but I believe it is the norm. Outside training is generally not being funded, regardless of where the fencer is at school. I also think playing the role of supporting Olympic aspirations via funding is offered by very few schools; generally the most competitive programs.
The European model you mention reflects the postponement or opting-out of academics. Fencers are funded by the military, by corporations or by other entities we don’t have in the US or which would negate NCAA eligibility. In any case, outside funding for fencers is limited to say the least. For the most part, we don’t seem to value fencing over academics and still prioritize getting into a good school, soon after high school, and pursuing an education leading to a career.
Like BrooklynRye said it is about priority, not money. It was writing on the wall that elite colleges would cut sports teams with low revenue generating, low national championship result achieving, low participation of national universities and low participation from minority/low-income high school students.
Sadly, like GlobalFencingMom pointed out that the USA fencing Olympian pipeline will get hurt badly without the college recruiting hooks.
From a bit of an outsider perspective, fencing is true niche sport, which as many on this forum has said, takes a fair amount of cost, time and parent commitment. It is not like joining a HS track team. So from a collegiate level, it would seem that a case could certainly be made for fencing and other similar niche sports being a club sport.
I feel for all the athletes but particularly those in the more traditional HS & college main stream sports that had a broad cross section of student athletes. Some of these sports do not lend themselves to being on a club level, and for some of these sports, college development is integral with the next level, Olympics, etc.
For whatever it’s worth, I’ll point out that both Brown and Stanford’s fencing teams had several years ago been planned for termination, and then were ‘saved.’ So it wouldn’t seem to be a coincidence that these particular universities decided to select fencing as a sport to give up. Maybe that’s true for other schools, but I’m unaware of them.
@BrooklynRye totally agree with your information on Olympic fencers.
However, the college (Stanford, Columbia, ND, Harvard to name a top few) model at the top schools has enabled Olympic / World team squad / hopefuls to pursue their degree alongside their wider fencing aspirations with the perks that come from being a D1 student athlete - tutor support, priority access to classes, academic advisors to advocate on their behalf, access to fencing facilities, high quality practice partners, weight room training, sports nutrition, psychologists, conditioning training, physios etc. - while competing for their school as part of their D1 fencing team. This removes a burden from the athlete or another organization / sponsor to provide these necessary training elements to accomplish their goals. In addition, most of these athletes do receive some travel funding for competitions outside of their school, in addition to the school being accommodating in support of the athlete who is still competing on the international circuit. This has been pivotal in allowing the US to rise to the level it has in the sport on a global level. Without this, the USA would not have been able to achieve the levels it has been able to do with merely federation stipend support and as you so rightly said, many athletes would not delay their education to pursue their athletic aspirations. The current college model has enabled a parallel process to be undertaken.
It is true that these athletes generally align themselves close to their personal coaches - although in the case of the Harvard athletes this is generally not the case - but I do think that being able to compete for your school and get support / allowances to pursue their world team aspirations within the college model is absolutely key to Olympic success within the USA in Fencing and other Olympic sports.
Stanford was pretty clear that its decision was about money. And Brown went so far out its way to say, “it’s not about money” that it was clearly about money.
Once there’s a limited pool of money to be spent, then priorities dictate how those dollars are doled out. And most endowment dollars are earmarked for other purposes, and can’t be shifted to athletics.
NCAA fencing may not be a feeder to the US national team, but look at all of the team members who went to colleges in/around cities with high level, non-collegiate coaches and training partners - e.g., Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, St. John’s, etc. Maintaining varsity fencing programs at those schools is essential, unless we expect future U.S. Olympians to forego college while they blossom into truly elite fencers.
Totally agree with everything you say. However, that support comes with some serious caveats. NCAA fencing is a big commitment. Team practices take time away from outside training. NCAA tournaments can interfere with major international events. There are other assorted obligations that interfere with Olympic aspirations. For those at the top, there is indeed funding for international travel. Of course equipment is a given. However, for those continuing with personal coaches not affiliated with the university, that expense remains with them. This all goes without saying that the rigors of an Ivy League or elite college course load are a tremendous burden on a fencer competing for a world team, let alone an Olympic team. That is why so many fencers take gap years in Olympic qualification seasons. What I find most impressive, however, is how the large majority of fencers continue to try and make this work. Very few drop-outs or top fencers who do not take advantage of opportunities to finish a top undergraduate education.
I don’t believe the decision of Brown and Stanford will have much, if any, impact on college recruiting. Brown hasn’t been a major factor in recruitment and competitions. Stanford has typically been one of the least active recruiters. In addition, the overwhelming majority of fencing programs are in the Northeast and Midwest.
Precisely. Also, Stanford terminated 11 programs. Not just fencing.
Stanford is probably not active in recruiting, it still attracts many top fencers to apply, including the fencers from the east coast. Stanford’s decision will have bad impact on the west coast regional collegiate competition, and probably jeopardizes UCSD’s fencing program. Considering the very few number of college fencing programs, and the number of student athletes who want to compete at NCAA, eliminating Stanford’s fencing is really bad for young fencers and the fencing sport.
My thoughts on Stanford fencing recruiting were originally documented in posts #153 and #398 of this thread.
The Stanford decision is impactful to college fencing recruiting on so many levels.
In our year, they took 4 fencers in our weapon, some more highly-ranked, some less than my son. The also rejected quite a few that ended up on top Ivy teams.
While the domino process may not start with Stanford, they were certainly one of the top 4 when it comes to academically-elite fencing programs.
Having a recruiting offer from Stanford greatly increases a fencer’s negotiating power with the other top programs. Ask any Ivy coach if they worry or think about who might choose Stanford over their program.
Knowing who was interested in Stanford and knowing who Stanford was interested in was essential in navigating the elite ranks of college fencing recruiting.
Stanford Fencing RIP
Yes, I agree with everything said here. My point was I don’t see this as the beginning of a trend or expect reverberation throughout NCAA fencing programs. As @“helmut?” stated they’ve teetered on termination previously. I think this is more a Brown/Stanford thing, as oppose to a NCAA fencing thing.
@ShanFerg3 …although possibly in the same category of competitiveness, it is now also a Dartmouth thing - https://www.vnews.com/Dartmouth-College-cuts-five-intercollegiate-teams-will-permanently-close-Hanover-Country-Club-35152771
I am not as secure as you regarding other Ivy and elite school programs…