I'll be live-blogging the second game in the CFL Friday Night Football lineup tonight, which features the B.C. Lions hosting the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. Both teams lost their opening games last week, so they'll be eager to pick up their first win of the season, but that's going to be a difficult task for the Tiger-Cats. For one thing, despite an appalling showing last week against the Saskatchewan Roughriders, B.C. had plenty of chances to win the game, including on the last drive. That's not too bad against a pretty solid Saskatchewan team, especially one playing in their home fortress of Mosaic Stadium.
Meanwhile, Hamilton got their clocks cleaned at home by the lacklustre Toronto Argonauts. The final score was 30-17, but the Tiger-Cats looked worse than that to this observer. Moreover, as Globe and Mail football reporter David Naylor relates on his blog, the Tiger-Cats are 2-22 in June and July since 2005, and no team from the Eastern time zone has won in B.C. since 2004. Interestingly enough, the Eastern team to last accomplish that feat was the 2004 Hamilton Tiger-Cats, coached by one Greg Marshall, who's now the head coach of the defending Yates Cup champion Western Mustangs.
In any case, it should be an interesting evening of football. Calgary takes on Winnipeg in the first match at 7:30 Eastern for anyone looking for an early CFL fix. B.C. and Hamilton will kick off at 10:30 Eastern (7:30 Pacific), and I'll start the live blog then. The games are broadcast on TSN in Canada; they should also be available on webcast for viewers in Canada and the U.S. through CFL Broadband. Hope to see you tonight!
Showing posts with label David Naylor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Naylor. Show all posts
Friday, July 10, 2009
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
CFL: Send in the Don!
This [David Naylor, The Globe and Mail] is absolutely out of the blue. I hadn't even heard rumours that Toronto Argonauts head coach Rich Stubler was about to be fired, but that makes sense given their play this year, and it makes abundant sense if you can replace him with the CFL's all-time leader in wins, Don Matthews. The team has called a press conference for 11:15 this morning to announce the change, and everyone from the CBC to The Fan 590's Bob McCown to Sportsnet's Perry Lefko has picked it up: TSN still hasn't had anything on the air, though, as they're still focusing on yesterday's firing [Stephen Brunt, The Globe and Mail, a must-read as always] of Hamilton Tiger-Cats head coach Charlie Taafe.
It's pretty funny that both struggling Ontario franchises decide to get rid of their coaches within a day of each other. Perhaps this is just the usual Argos' plan to upstage the Ti-Cats? Seriously, though, Matthews certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea, and has had notable struggles with the media in the past, as well as bizarrely resigning his last job with the Montreal Alouettes part of the way through the season. Most thought he was retired for good, but if he wants to come back, I'd think most teams would be willing to give him a shot: the man knows how to win, and how to win without the best players (a problem faced by both Toronto and Hamilton these days). He certainly can't make things any worse in Toronto, and just his hiring will reinvigorate the interest in the franchise from both fans and the media. In my mind, this is a pretty smart move by franchise president Pinball Clemons, and it makes much more sense than him stepping back to the sidelines himself, which was the preferred rumour for a long period.
The downsides of this move are mostly for fans of other CFL teams, including my beloved B.C. Lions, as playing Toronto just got a lot more intimidating. Also, Wally Buono's charge to pass Matthews on the all-time wins list (Matthews currently leads by 15, according to cfl.ca) may take a bit longer. Still, all things considered, it's great to see a legend like the Don return to the game. That should make it a very, very interesting stretch drive in the East, where Toronto is currently second(!) with a 4-6 record: at the moment, the bottom-of-the West Lions (5-5) would take the third playoff berth in the East via crossover and have a better record than the second-place team. I'm guessing a Matthews-coached Argonauts team is good for at least .500 though, especially in that division. It should be fun to watch.
(As an aside, this might cheer Neate up. This morning, he wrote, "What's worse: Supporting for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats, who tied the can to Charlie Taaffe on Monday, or supporting the only CFL team the Tabbies can beat, the other one in Southern Ontario?" Well, at the moment, it looks like there's a lot more hope for Toronto.)
It's pretty funny that both struggling Ontario franchises decide to get rid of their coaches within a day of each other. Perhaps this is just the usual Argos' plan to upstage the Ti-Cats? Seriously, though, Matthews certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea, and has had notable struggles with the media in the past, as well as bizarrely resigning his last job with the Montreal Alouettes part of the way through the season. Most thought he was retired for good, but if he wants to come back, I'd think most teams would be willing to give him a shot: the man knows how to win, and how to win without the best players (a problem faced by both Toronto and Hamilton these days). He certainly can't make things any worse in Toronto, and just his hiring will reinvigorate the interest in the franchise from both fans and the media. In my mind, this is a pretty smart move by franchise president Pinball Clemons, and it makes much more sense than him stepping back to the sidelines himself, which was the preferred rumour for a long period.
The downsides of this move are mostly for fans of other CFL teams, including my beloved B.C. Lions, as playing Toronto just got a lot more intimidating. Also, Wally Buono's charge to pass Matthews on the all-time wins list (Matthews currently leads by 15, according to cfl.ca) may take a bit longer. Still, all things considered, it's great to see a legend like the Don return to the game. That should make it a very, very interesting stretch drive in the East, where Toronto is currently second(!) with a 4-6 record: at the moment, the bottom-of-the West Lions (5-5) would take the third playoff berth in the East via crossover and have a better record than the second-place team. I'm guessing a Matthews-coached Argonauts team is good for at least .500 though, especially in that division. It should be fun to watch.
(As an aside, this might cheer Neate up. This morning, he wrote, "What's worse: Supporting for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats, who tied the can to Charlie Taaffe on Monday, or supporting the only CFL team the Tabbies can beat, the other one in Southern Ontario?" Well, at the moment, it looks like there's a lot more hope for Toronto.)
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Campus Corner: Ding dong, Hitchcock's gone
Queen's principal Dr. Karen Hitchcock announced her resignation earlier today, which came on the heels of some severe criticism of her by student leaders, professors, and even our own paper.
It's no secret that I haven't been the biggest Hitchcock fan, especially given her treatment of the athletics review. Back in June, three months after the review's initial release date, she wouldn't even speak to our paper about why it was delayed or when it could be expected out. Instead, we got a statement from one of her plethora of spokespeople that she'd been considering it for a month and would release it in the near future. Well, that near future turned out to be nearer than expected: the day after we went to press, she suddenly released the review (perhaps prompted by our editorial criticizing the delay, or perhaps with the knowledge that any criticism of it would be delayed until our next print issue a month later, as we operate on a slower schedule in the summer months). In any case, her momentous decision that took over a month to come up with was the bold and shocking claim that the report needed further review. She dragged the process out for another six months in the name of soliciting additional feedback (mostly from the same people who gave their opinions before the generation of the review), and then made her final decision over a month after her own deadline.
In keeping with the vein of her bold decisions, the stunning conclusion that took so much time to come to was that parts of the review should be gradually implemented, but the most important recommendation (cutting funding to some teams to fund others at higher levels) should be put off until another review in April 2009 reranked the teams. It certainly seemed a political decision calculated to try and keep both the pro- and anti-review camps happy, perhaps not surprising given how the timing lined up with her quest for reappointment. There are parts of the review I disagree with, but on the whole, it's a pretty solid work and it outlines a compelling vision of excellence in a few sports. The anti-review forces also have a compelling vision of Queen's succeeding in a wide variety of sports. Hitchcock's attempt at a diplomatic response alienated both sides and prevented any solid progress in either direction. As we pointed out in an editorial the next issue, her response effectively nullified the review's chance to accomplish much in the coming years.
"Hitchcock has erred so much on the side of caution she has effectively made no changes at all," we wrote. "With a whole school year nearly passed before her haphazard response, Queen’s athletics hardly seem to be a top priority for Hitchcock.
The Athletics Review had the potential to improve Queen’s athletics and do so within a foreseeable timeframe. Hitchcock’s call to review interuniversity and competitive teams in another year renders that aspect of the initial report useless and doesn’t say anything concrete about the teams’ futures. It seems ridiculous that so much time and money went into the Athletics Review, only for it to be reviewed again."
Hitchcock followed up this lack of concern for athletics with an even more prominent display of her disregard when she skipped the annual end-of-year athletics banquet, sending vice-principal (academic) Patrick Deane instead (as she seemed to do for anything remotely controversial). She did address the assembled crowd via a creepy Orwellian pre-recorded video message, however. This wasn't a lone example of Hitchcock's lack of engagement with athletics, which was starkly different from her predecessors. A Queen's coach I was speaking to the other day told me about a recent encounter she had with ex-principal Bill Leggett, who not only remembered her, but discussed her team's recent successes in detail. It's hard to picture Hitchcock being able to do that, as she rarely attended games. When she did bother to show up, it was usually for a quick photo op at the start, and then she'd swiftly take off to do more important things. Contrast that with a university president like David Naylor of the University of Toronto, who, as James Mirtle wrote about in a Globe feature last fall, sees athletics as important to the school's overall success. Naylor, a former basketball Varsity Blue himself, told Mirtle he fully supports strong varsity teams.
Naylor's approach is hardly unique. In a time when universities are becoming less distinguishable from each other academically, sports play a huge role in both developing tradition and selling your brand. Consider the following quote from Michael Grange's story about the role the success of Carleton's basketball program played in shedding the school's "Last Chance U" reputation. "Their success has changed our outlook," said Dr. Samy Mahmoud, Carleton's president. "Sports are no longer an ancillary activity here. It's at the core of what we do." Wouldn't it be nice if Queen's new principal thought the same way? Sports should be one of the crucial parts of a university: not necessarily neglecting academics for athletics (a la the NCAA), but using athletics to build community spirit and attract people (and donors) to your school. Hitchcock never understood that: let's hope her successor does.
It's no secret that I haven't been the biggest Hitchcock fan, especially given her treatment of the athletics review. Back in June, three months after the review's initial release date, she wouldn't even speak to our paper about why it was delayed or when it could be expected out. Instead, we got a statement from one of her plethora of spokespeople that she'd been considering it for a month and would release it in the near future. Well, that near future turned out to be nearer than expected: the day after we went to press, she suddenly released the review (perhaps prompted by our editorial criticizing the delay, or perhaps with the knowledge that any criticism of it would be delayed until our next print issue a month later, as we operate on a slower schedule in the summer months). In any case, her momentous decision that took over a month to come up with was the bold and shocking claim that the report needed further review. She dragged the process out for another six months in the name of soliciting additional feedback (mostly from the same people who gave their opinions before the generation of the review), and then made her final decision over a month after her own deadline.
In keeping with the vein of her bold decisions, the stunning conclusion that took so much time to come to was that parts of the review should be gradually implemented, but the most important recommendation (cutting funding to some teams to fund others at higher levels) should be put off until another review in April 2009 reranked the teams. It certainly seemed a political decision calculated to try and keep both the pro- and anti-review camps happy, perhaps not surprising given how the timing lined up with her quest for reappointment. There are parts of the review I disagree with, but on the whole, it's a pretty solid work and it outlines a compelling vision of excellence in a few sports. The anti-review forces also have a compelling vision of Queen's succeeding in a wide variety of sports. Hitchcock's attempt at a diplomatic response alienated both sides and prevented any solid progress in either direction. As we pointed out in an editorial the next issue, her response effectively nullified the review's chance to accomplish much in the coming years.
"Hitchcock has erred so much on the side of caution she has effectively made no changes at all," we wrote. "With a whole school year nearly passed before her haphazard response, Queen’s athletics hardly seem to be a top priority for Hitchcock.
The Athletics Review had the potential to improve Queen’s athletics and do so within a foreseeable timeframe. Hitchcock’s call to review interuniversity and competitive teams in another year renders that aspect of the initial report useless and doesn’t say anything concrete about the teams’ futures. It seems ridiculous that so much time and money went into the Athletics Review, only for it to be reviewed again."
Hitchcock followed up this lack of concern for athletics with an even more prominent display of her disregard when she skipped the annual end-of-year athletics banquet, sending vice-principal (academic) Patrick Deane instead (as she seemed to do for anything remotely controversial). She did address the assembled crowd via a creepy Orwellian pre-recorded video message, however. This wasn't a lone example of Hitchcock's lack of engagement with athletics, which was starkly different from her predecessors. A Queen's coach I was speaking to the other day told me about a recent encounter she had with ex-principal Bill Leggett, who not only remembered her, but discussed her team's recent successes in detail. It's hard to picture Hitchcock being able to do that, as she rarely attended games. When she did bother to show up, it was usually for a quick photo op at the start, and then she'd swiftly take off to do more important things. Contrast that with a university president like David Naylor of the University of Toronto, who, as James Mirtle wrote about in a Globe feature last fall, sees athletics as important to the school's overall success. Naylor, a former basketball Varsity Blue himself, told Mirtle he fully supports strong varsity teams.
Naylor's approach is hardly unique. In a time when universities are becoming less distinguishable from each other academically, sports play a huge role in both developing tradition and selling your brand. Consider the following quote from Michael Grange's story about the role the success of Carleton's basketball program played in shedding the school's "Last Chance U" reputation. "Their success has changed our outlook," said Dr. Samy Mahmoud, Carleton's president. "Sports are no longer an ancillary activity here. It's at the core of what we do." Wouldn't it be nice if Queen's new principal thought the same way? Sports should be one of the crucial parts of a university: not necessarily neglecting academics for athletics (a la the NCAA), but using athletics to build community spirit and attract people (and donors) to your school. Hitchcock never understood that: let's hope her successor does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
