|
Post by Parry Nine on Apr 17, 2006 8:44:30 GMT -6
Well, Texas Tech would be out. The University doesn't offer credit and the people qualified don't have time to offer such a class.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Apr 17, 2006 11:27:09 GMT -6
Tech doesn't offer college credit? That explains some things to me.
So sub the following for #3:
3) To be a member of SWIFA, you have to offer college credit, but not necessarily in SWIFA. I'm saying you have to be a college credit offering institution, not that you have to get credit for SWIFA or offer a specific class. Just college credit of some kind from your specific institution.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Apr 17, 2006 19:55:29 GMT -6
What do you mean? Currently, the only one that's qualified (certified, etc...) is already on assistantship and is VERY busy in my studies. The other coach is also too busy to offer a class.
The new number 3 sounds good to me.
|
|
Katman
Squire
[ss:Default]
Posts: 269
|
Post by Katman on Apr 17, 2006 21:14:08 GMT -6
Yah, fencing at UH is a club sport. There's no class or anything that offers course credit. If by this new one you mean that the club needs to be attached to a college credit offering university (as KD5MDK said earlier) then sure I can dig it.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 17, 2006 23:18:11 GMT -6
Every school in SWIFA should have an equal voting stake not based on the relative strength of their club. That's the way it's set up in the draft proposal:"Article III: Membership - Dues - Competitions ... b) Team Membership ... Section 2. Any member team shall be qualified to vote and shall have one vote at the Annual Meeting or any called Special Meeting."
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 17, 2006 23:24:53 GMT -6
2) Policy and fees are set by the member schools in annual or special meetings. The EC exists solely to execute these policies and collect the appropriate fees. The EC has no authority to set policy. If something needs to be done immediately, they can do it and then be accountable for their actions to the membership. If the action is deemed necessary/in SWIFA's interest fine, otherwise punitive action should be taken. Sounds like an invitation for absolute chaos to me. Somewhat like what we currently have. Moreover, who would want to serve in an EC which has no real authority? And for which they may be sanctioned when the exercise what little authority they do have?
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 17, 2006 23:49:53 GMT -6
4) Tournament format should be addressed in an operations manual. It should be consistant throughout a season and not vary according to the hosts whim. It can be amended separately from the by-laws. I think everyone would like an operations manual eventually. Do you have time to draft one? It would be very difficult to anticipate the many various tournament formats that might come up due to the special cirumstances and the different abilities/resources of the host clubs.
I think that the idea was to get a basic organization in place, and create a committee to draft a manual once they have seen what works and what the different host clubs were capable of doing with the resoursorces available to them. You'd have to anticipate individual meets, team meets, both individual and team meets, one-day events, two-day events, gender-seggregated and mixed-gender events, etc., etc., etc...
Oh, and what happens when the Rec Sports people decide to double-book your venue at the last moment?
I'd think it was much more important to just have everybody notified of what you intend to do, and have a way to change it if there is a disaster, and then post the notice on the website so the teams know about it before they get there.
Also, having the EC do it if it were necessary in a last-moment disaser is a much more flexible and faster method than having a vote of the member clubs.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 18, 2006 0:13:56 GMT -6
My only question (and I saw that Dan has the same concern) is are we going to include youth, cadet, and junior fencers? I think that for competetion, the fencer must be a member of a Collegiate team AND be a college student at said University. The reason I believe that is the name Southwest Intercollegiate Fencing Assn. Which, in turn will include many Junior fencers (and maybe a few Cadet), but SWIFA wouldn't differentiate between age groups. Let's see... I can think of the following: Junior Colleges, Business colleges, Community colleges, 2-year Associate Degree colleges, Regular 4-year colleges, Graduate schools, Professional schools, Military Colleges... What else?
And I personally like Jay's idea to include Gary Job Corps due to historical participation in SWIFA rather than cutting them out.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 18, 2006 3:51:08 GMT -6
You'd have to anticipate individual meets, team meets, both individual and team meets, one-day events, two-day events, gender-seggregated and mixed-gender events, etc., etc., etc... Oh, and what happens when the Rec Sports people decide to double-book your venue at the last moment? You don't have to anticipate all these different formats if you don't want to. You can simple not support them until an appropriate plan is drawn up and voted on. As for getting venues taken away, I can't really see what you expect to do about that; hold the tournament in the parking lot as a series of one touch dry bouts? Lots of groups have done this before. Why reinvent the wheel?
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Apr 18, 2006 5:18:07 GMT -6
Actually, it was Dan's idea, I believe.
One issue that I didn't see addressed (and correct me if I'm wrong), but is there an article or whatnot about following USFA rules? And if not, which rules will we follow and which rules will we not follow? I personally, would like to see us begin to host tournaments that follow USFA rules, specifically the rule about attire. Yes, I DO realize that some of the fencers at these tourneys are beginners, but baseball pants are $10-$15 at Walmart. Fencing in SHORTS is unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 18, 2006 6:03:52 GMT -6
ARTICLE IX: By-Laws, Rules, and policies of S.W.I.F.A. All By-Laws, rules, regulations and matters of policy concerning the conduct of competitions as set forth in the Fencing Rules and Operations Manual of the United States Fencing Association are hereby incorporated as part as these By-Laws without action by the Executive Committee or member teams of S.W.I.F.A., unless they are specifically contradicted herein.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Apr 18, 2006 10:58:14 GMT -6
I echo Jay -- you don't have to cover too many situations out of the gate -- only the standard format used over the last few years (and it had been fairly standard with a few snafus). Gender specific, multi-day, limit of one team per school per weapon, etc. are all things that can by looked at down the road.
As for authority of the EC, they shouldn't be given carte blanche to set dues, head taxes, or any other money. That has to come from the member schools -- the EC should only collect the fees the members agree to assess. The members are free to vote the EC a discretionary fund for promotion or anything else, but I'm leery of an EC that can do what it wants. Last time that happened, the coffers got real empty, real fast.
Also, I'm not saying the membership has to vote on every expenditure, rather the membership says you have this much money in dues, this much in tournament fees, and this much in sponsorship (hopefully eventually). You have to do these things with these rough guidelines, give us a report when you're done.
As to my version of one school, one vote -- it would be impossible to gather the 25 votes needed to instigate an impeachment under this without 25 teams in SWIFA.
As to Gary Job Corps, I am ambivalent. I'm far more interested in getting SMU, TCU, and other schools around Texas involved. I'd like to see the boundaries expanded to include the entire Southwest Section eventually, but realize a little growth should occur first. Maybe Gary Job Corps offers some college credit and the whole thing is moot.
As to Tech offering college credit, I've met grads who say they do, I remain leery.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 18, 2006 11:04:17 GMT -6
I think that an ultimate goal of "every college in Texas that offers fencing" as members is a nice idea, but we need to focus on schools that already have teams competing first.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Apr 18, 2006 21:10:06 GMT -6
Dan,
We no longer offer credit. As I believe it, it has been a good while since. Don't get me wrong, but I'd love to be able to because it would boost our numbers (which desperately need boosting) but no one has time as of now.
I agree with kd5mdk's sentiment. Let's focus on the here and now. Once this thing is rolling, then let's start expanding.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 18, 2006 22:27:36 GMT -6
I believe Dan is talking about college credit in general, not for fencing.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Apr 19, 2006 7:57:37 GMT -6
Oh, heh heh heh. Yes, Tech is still accredited and offers credit. Otherwise I wouldn't be doing my master's work there.
|
|
|
Post by saberbobcat on Apr 19, 2006 12:20:57 GMT -6
Golly... what would you think if the Catholic University in Corpus started a program this summer and had a team? AND... what if my two new students from Texas A&M in Corpus Chrisiti decided to participate in SWIFTA? You guys just might have a few more college kids to cross blades with from my neck of the woods! Who would have dreamed of such a thing? Now, the question is--- must their schools offer college credit for fencing in order for them to be a part of SWIFTA? Hmmmmmmm.......
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 19, 2006 12:45:05 GMT -6
No, I don't believe anyone wants to limit SWIFA to schools that offer college credit for fencing. Only limit it to college credit granting (at all) institutions.
However, that does bring up another point: Incomplete teams. I believe the USACFC is discussing, and may very well, prohibiting teams of less than 3 people. While I realize SWIFA is not trying to be as formal as they are, it really is unfair for a school which does send 3 people having to fence incomplete teams. Unless the missing C (or B&C spot) bouts are counted as forfits.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Apr 19, 2006 15:47:41 GMT -6
I would say that if they only have 2 members, allow them to fence, but they forfeit any bouts that the "C" fencer would have fenced.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 19, 2006 16:00:25 GMT -6
I seem to recall that Oscar Barrera and Gary Van Der Wege told me that SWIFA had on at least occasion in the past allowed one team to substitute a High School graduate for the 3rd fencer.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 19, 2006 17:39:42 GMT -6
I believe Ray Sexton has graduated High School, can we have him?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Apr 19, 2006 21:33:21 GMT -6
At collegiate dual meets, any empty slot was counted as a forfit. You can beat schools when you only have 2 fencers, but there isn't much room for error as you're starting out 0-3 in a race to 5. I'd really like to see SWIFA go a team format where you fence each school maybe twice through the season. The schedule would be a series of dual meets where you would fence several schools head to head over the course of the day and then go home. There would be no SWIFA #1 champ. At the end of the season, we'd hold SWIFA Championships maybe the first or second weekend of March (i.e. before Club Nationals) and we'd essentianly seed each school into a DE based on the seasons results or maybe run a club national type format. I'm open on that count. The reason I'd like to see this format is twofold: 1) By bringing SWIFA in line with the national norm for collegiate fencing we promote more inter-regional competition once some clubs can start scraping the cash together (and I think it can be done -- clubs in other sports do it). Are we at this level yet? No, but we should go forward anyway because if we don't plan for this goal until we can reach this goal, then we'll never get there. 2) I really enjoyed fencing like this where you go against some team, you epee squad won 5-4, your foil squad lost 4-5, the saber is tied 4-4 and you're fighting for everything in the bout you're on strip for. It is a rush. I think it does more to build drive to win and rivalries and that does more to build the level of the fencing. My 2 cents. Dan ps I'm sad that Andrew ruined my game. I was enjoying Jay not getting that I was talking about college credit in general.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 20, 2006 0:07:49 GMT -6
I believe Ray Sexton has graduated High School, can we have him? No, he's ours. He practices with ATAC.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 20, 2006 0:12:49 GMT -6
At collegiate dual meets, any empty slot was counted as a forfit. You can beat schools when you only have 2 fencers, but there isn't much room for error as you're starting out 0-3 in a race to 5. I'd really like to see SWIFA go a team format where you fence each school maybe twice through the season. The schedule would be a series of dual meets where you would fence several schools head to head over the course of the day and then go home. There would be no SWIFA #1 champ. At the end of the season, we'd hold SWIFA Championships maybe the first or second weekend of March (i.e. before Club Nationals) and we'd essentianly seed each school into a DE based on the seasons results or maybe run a club national type format. I'm open on that count. The reason I'd like to see this format is twofold: 1) By bringing SWIFA in line with the national norm for collegiate fencing we promote more inter-regional competition once some clubs can start scraping the cash together (and I think it can be done -- clubs in other sports do it). Are we at this level yet? No, but we should go forward anyway because if we don't plan for this goal until we can reach this goal, then we'll never get there. 2) I really enjoyed fencing like this where you go against some team, you epee squad won 5-4, your foil squad lost 4-5, the saber is tied 4-4 and you're fighting for everything in the bout you're on strip for. It is a rush. I think it does more to build drive to win and rivalries and that does more to build the level of the fencing. My 2 cents. Dan That's my dream for SWIFA, too. And for it to go varsity. I never want to see kids sleep in a sleeping bag in somebody's garage again just because they love fencing and not football!
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 20, 2006 0:24:02 GMT -6
I believe Ray Sexton has graduated High School, can we have him? No, he's ours. He practices with ATAC. ATAC offers college credit? When can I enroll? (I worked in UT Admissions for 2 years, and saw transcripts for universities all over the state, country and world. I never saw one from ATAC...) Also, given he wears a longhorn on his glove and modified his introduction at the Reno NAC awards presentation to mention UT, he's a bit partial to us, I think. I wanted to move on to new and different ways of confusing the Red Raiders. Besides, given that several of my points on the previous page were credited to him, it only seemed fair...
|
|