This year in CIS (Canadian Interuniversity Sport) football has seen some crazy games. The Ontario playoffs in particular have been excellent, and the Queen's Golden Gaels emerged as Yates Cup champions with wins over the McMaster Marauders and the Western Mustangs. Today, they knocked off the Laval Rouge et Or 33-30 (see my friend and former Queen's Journal colleague Mike Woods' CP story here) to advance to the Vanier Cup, the Canadian university championship. There, they'll take on the University of Calgary Dinos, who demolished the Saint Mary's Huskies 38-14 in the Uteck Bowl earlier today.
In the wake of the Queen's game, Canwest News Service's Peter James made an interesting remark that served as the inspiration for this post. Tongue-in-cheek, he tweeted, "BCS supporters can point to the #CIS to show why their system works. Queen's upset prevented at No. 1 vs. No 2 Vanier Cup."
That's true, as Laval ranked first and Calgary ranked second in the final UFRC-CIS poll of the season. Queen's was fourth. Personally, I had Queen's as the top team in every week after Laval's surprising loss to Montreal, as the Gaels never lost a meaningful game (their sole loss came in the regular-season finale after they'd already locked up the top playoff berth), and I predicted last night on Norman James' radio show that I saw them winning by a field goal thanks to their ability to dominate the trench fights. However, I was very much in the minority; most saw this as an easy Laval win, and figured it would be a victory for Queen's just to keep it close. There's no way Queen's would have been selected for the title game if the CIS used any sort of BCS ranking system.
To me, what this shows is how desperately the NCAA needs a playoff system. Last week's Yates Cup against Western and this week's Queen's-Laval game have been two of the better football games I've seen at any level. Things are so close at the top of the CIS that any team can win on any given Saturday. To me, it makes zero sense to rely on a system of polls, no matter how elaborate. It's the results on the field that matter, and the unpredictability of football means anything can happen; last year, for example, 8-0 Queen's was upset in their first playoff game by the 4-4 University of Ottawa Gee-Gees. We see that south of the border as well, especially in the Pac-10 this year, where the top teams are all tightly bunched and the bottom teams aren't far beneath them.
Most of the time in North American culture, successful developments come from the U.S. and are transmitted north to Canada, often much later. As Robin Scherbatsky remarked in How I Met Your Mother's "Slap Bet" episode (one of my favourites), "The 80's didn't come to Canada till, like '93". That explains this video:
However, in football, it's often been a different story. The CFL proved to be the spawning ground for passing-oriented offences, which have since taken over the NCAA and the NFL to a degree. Guys like Warren Moon and Doug Flutie weren't intially given chances in the NFL thanks to being too black or too short to play quarterback; they came to the CFL, excelled, and forced the NFL to innovate. I suggest that the NCAA should follow this trend and take a page from the CIS playbook. It wouldn't even be that hard to use a somewhat similar system, as most of the major conferences already have championship games; take the winners of those games, figure out a good way to add a couple of at-large berths and run a three-week, eight-team playoff. There would still be issues around which teams were selected for the playoffs, but you wouldn't likely have the status quo where teams can win every game and still come up short. Championships should be decided on the field, not by voters or computers, and the NCAA should take a page from the CIS playbook on this one.
Showing posts with label Queen's Centre. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Queen's Centre. Show all posts
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Campus Corner: Update on Queen's proposed athletics fee increase
Next Monday's going to be a very significant moment in the future of Queen's athletics. That's the date of the AMS (Alma Mater Society, the undergraduate student government) general meeting, which takes place in Ban Righ Hall at 8 p.m. All current students have a vote at the meeting. The key motion to be addressed is a $120 increase to the current athletics fee of $131.75, spread out over several years (you can see the details on the Queen's site here, along with some very interesting budgeting data). Steep university budget cuts mean that the athletics department is facing some challenging times financially and may have to drastically alter their programs if they don't get this increase. Anyway, an interesting foreshadowing of what may go down at the AGM occured March 1 at a special AMS Assembly meeting to consider endorsing the fee increase and sending it to the general meeting for further ratification. I got the bare-bones details on the meeting in last week's Journal but figured I'd provide a little more information and context on it here thanks to the lesser space constraints. My article follows; I'll weigh in with my own thoughts on the matter as the AGM gets closer.
Athletics fee increase sent to AGM
By Andrew Bucholtz
Sports Editor
At a special meeting on March 1, AMS Assembly voted to put a motion to increase the annual Athletics and Recreation fee on the agenda for the AMS annual general meeting on March 16. The motion proposes an increase of $120 spread out over several years. The final schedule of proposed fee increases differs from the original plan put forward by Athletics at the February 11 AMS Assembly, which proposed a $50 increase in 2009-10, an additional $40 increase in 2011-12 and a further $30 in 2012-13 with the fee to be indexed to inflation thereafter. The new schedule proposes a $35 increase in 2009-10, with a $40 increase to follow in 2011-12, and a $45 increase in 2012-13 before indexing the fee to inflation in 2013-2014.
Director of Athletics and Recreation Leslie Dal Cin said the change was due to feedback from the department’s meetings with the PHESA and ComSoc assemblies, which proposed that shifting the larger increases to later years would be fairer to the students graduating next year who would only have one year of access to the Queen’s Centre facilities. Dal Cin said the revised schedule would force the department to run a deficit for one more year than the original plan would have, but the University has agreed to let the department run that deficit. Over 50 student-athletes and coaches attended the meeting to show their support for the fee.
Dal Cin said she was thankful for the support Assembly showed for Queen’s athletics and recreation programs.
“We’re grateful for both the support and the comments about the process,” she said. “The fact that so many people think supporting athletics and recreation is important is tremendous and is tremendous for our confidence.”
Dal Cin said the department plans further campaigns to increase awareness of the proposed increase and what the funds would be used for before the AGM.
“We still have more education to do,” she said. “We really felt people needed to be informed and engaged.”
Dal Cin said the change was due to feedback from student leaders.
“That was a suggestion that came out of both the ComSoc meeting and the meeting with PHESA,” she said. “It really spoke to an understanding of when the services would come on line and a certain degree of fairness that people who are graduating next year wouldn’t have had the benefit of what the Queen’s Centre can bring and all the programs and services for their previous three years.”
Dal Cin said the department made the change because they wanted to address student concerns about the fee increase.
“It was a great suggestion and we were happily able to accommodate it,” she said. “I think that helped in terms of shaping our process and people understanding that we were looking for input and prepared to accept it once we received it.”
CESA president Todd Ormiston said the increase is necessary thanks to the budget pressures faced by the athletics department.
“I think unfortunately this fee is needed,” he said. “This fee needs to happen for athletics to survive and I think we all recognize that.”
Ormiston said he doesn’t want the University to cut their funding to athletics further, though, as that would force students to bear even more of the load.
“It’s time for us to stop paying backdoor tuition fees,” he said.
Dal Cin said she’s hopeful the University will continue to support the department.
“We will do our best to make sure that the University does its part for Athletics and Recreation,” she said.
EngSoc president Jordan Black said the increase is needed to allow students to take full advantage of the new Queen’s Centre facilities for both athletics and recreation programs.
“It’s really important that we continue to provide the resources or improve the resources to both of these programs,” he said. “With all these new facilities coming in the form of the Queen’s Centre, it would be a shame to not operate them at their full capacity.”
Black said the strong student support shown for the fee increase in both the winter referendum and further polling conducted by Athletics and Recreation made it important for Assembly to send the motion to the AGM.
“Students are making a point of saying that they support this,” he said.
Medical students’ representative John Doan brought forward an amendment to approve only the first year’s fee increase and send the other increases to a referendum. Doan said his constituents don’t support a fee increase, as many of them don’t often use athletics facilities.
“In general, they are somewhat opposed to the motion, and as their representative, so am I,” he said.
Done said his constituents were also concerned that the fee was going to the AGM instead of a campus-wide referendum. He brought forward an amendment to send the first increase, of $35 for the 2009-2010 school year, to the AGM and bring the other proposed increases to referendum.
Dal Cin said the funding uncertainty that would arise from Done’s amendment would put the athletics department in a deficit position.
“If we were to adopt that motion, we would never be able to get out of that deficit,” she said.
Chair of the AMS Board of Directors Kaitlyn Young spoke against the amendment. She said she wasn’t concerned about sending the fee to the AGM instead of a referendum thanks to its support among students.
“We have student support for this and that’s what we’d be looking for in a referendum,” she said.
Young said the increase is essential to ensure stability in the athletics budget.
“Ever since I’ve been here at Queen’s, there’s been uncertainty around the athletics program,” she said. “I think the way the motion is worded without the amendment is perfect to give athletics some stability.”
Done’s amendment was voted down and the motion to send the fee to the AGM was passed with only one vote against.
Athletics fee increase sent to AGM
By Andrew Bucholtz
Sports Editor
At a special meeting on March 1, AMS Assembly voted to put a motion to increase the annual Athletics and Recreation fee on the agenda for the AMS annual general meeting on March 16. The motion proposes an increase of $120 spread out over several years. The final schedule of proposed fee increases differs from the original plan put forward by Athletics at the February 11 AMS Assembly, which proposed a $50 increase in 2009-10, an additional $40 increase in 2011-12 and a further $30 in 2012-13 with the fee to be indexed to inflation thereafter. The new schedule proposes a $35 increase in 2009-10, with a $40 increase to follow in 2011-12, and a $45 increase in 2012-13 before indexing the fee to inflation in 2013-2014.
Director of Athletics and Recreation Leslie Dal Cin said the change was due to feedback from the department’s meetings with the PHESA and ComSoc assemblies, which proposed that shifting the larger increases to later years would be fairer to the students graduating next year who would only have one year of access to the Queen’s Centre facilities. Dal Cin said the revised schedule would force the department to run a deficit for one more year than the original plan would have, but the University has agreed to let the department run that deficit. Over 50 student-athletes and coaches attended the meeting to show their support for the fee.
Dal Cin said she was thankful for the support Assembly showed for Queen’s athletics and recreation programs.
“We’re grateful for both the support and the comments about the process,” she said. “The fact that so many people think supporting athletics and recreation is important is tremendous and is tremendous for our confidence.”
Dal Cin said the department plans further campaigns to increase awareness of the proposed increase and what the funds would be used for before the AGM.
“We still have more education to do,” she said. “We really felt people needed to be informed and engaged.”
Dal Cin said the change was due to feedback from student leaders.
“That was a suggestion that came out of both the ComSoc meeting and the meeting with PHESA,” she said. “It really spoke to an understanding of when the services would come on line and a certain degree of fairness that people who are graduating next year wouldn’t have had the benefit of what the Queen’s Centre can bring and all the programs and services for their previous three years.”
Dal Cin said the department made the change because they wanted to address student concerns about the fee increase.
“It was a great suggestion and we were happily able to accommodate it,” she said. “I think that helped in terms of shaping our process and people understanding that we were looking for input and prepared to accept it once we received it.”
CESA president Todd Ormiston said the increase is necessary thanks to the budget pressures faced by the athletics department.
“I think unfortunately this fee is needed,” he said. “This fee needs to happen for athletics to survive and I think we all recognize that.”
Ormiston said he doesn’t want the University to cut their funding to athletics further, though, as that would force students to bear even more of the load.
“It’s time for us to stop paying backdoor tuition fees,” he said.
Dal Cin said she’s hopeful the University will continue to support the department.
“We will do our best to make sure that the University does its part for Athletics and Recreation,” she said.
EngSoc president Jordan Black said the increase is needed to allow students to take full advantage of the new Queen’s Centre facilities for both athletics and recreation programs.
“It’s really important that we continue to provide the resources or improve the resources to both of these programs,” he said. “With all these new facilities coming in the form of the Queen’s Centre, it would be a shame to not operate them at their full capacity.”
Black said the strong student support shown for the fee increase in both the winter referendum and further polling conducted by Athletics and Recreation made it important for Assembly to send the motion to the AGM.
“Students are making a point of saying that they support this,” he said.
Medical students’ representative John Doan brought forward an amendment to approve only the first year’s fee increase and send the other increases to a referendum. Doan said his constituents don’t support a fee increase, as many of them don’t often use athletics facilities.
“In general, they are somewhat opposed to the motion, and as their representative, so am I,” he said.
Done said his constituents were also concerned that the fee was going to the AGM instead of a campus-wide referendum. He brought forward an amendment to send the first increase, of $35 for the 2009-2010 school year, to the AGM and bring the other proposed increases to referendum.
Dal Cin said the funding uncertainty that would arise from Done’s amendment would put the athletics department in a deficit position.
“If we were to adopt that motion, we would never be able to get out of that deficit,” she said.
Chair of the AMS Board of Directors Kaitlyn Young spoke against the amendment. She said she wasn’t concerned about sending the fee to the AGM instead of a referendum thanks to its support among students.
“We have student support for this and that’s what we’d be looking for in a referendum,” she said.
Young said the increase is essential to ensure stability in the athletics budget.
“Ever since I’ve been here at Queen’s, there’s been uncertainty around the athletics program,” she said. “I think the way the motion is worded without the amendment is perfect to give athletics some stability.”
Done’s amendment was voted down and the motion to send the fee to the AGM was passed with only one vote against.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
You don't know what you got 'til it's gone
Few things during my time at Queen's have depressed me more than finding out yesterday [myself and Emily Davies, Queen's Journal] that the dream of a new hockey arena on Main Campus was all but dead. Sure, they've been talking about it for a while and there are some financial benefits (although no one I talked to yesterday could confirm if those numbers are still accurate), but for me, the arena was always one of the big selling points of the Queen's Centre. New gyms and student space are great, but the sports experience I probably miss more than anything else here were the Friday night hockey games at Jock Harty I'd go to with my buddies from the dorm floor back in first year. There was great student support, beer gardens and just generally a tremendous atmosphere. I've been to plenty of great Queen's hockey games since, including this past weekend's Carr-Harris Cup, but it's never been quite the same; even though the Memorial Centre is a good facility (and pretty similar to the old Jock), it's dead for the vast majority of the games.
Unfortunately, that's what I see happening with this new project if and when the West Campus arena gets built. Yes, some students make the pilgrimage out there for football, but that's quite a bit different; it's during a warmer part of the year, there's always been more buzz around football than hockey here and the games are in the afternoon instead of at night. Believe me, walking back from the desolate wasteland of West Campus is bad enough on a nice afternoon; it's far worse on the sort of frigid winter night we have in Kingston far too often for my taste. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe students will embrace this, especially if the rest of the West Campus redesign goes ahead (and they actually put a bar or something out there; it's in the middle of absolutely nowhere at the moment). Given the apathy that seems to exist towards varsity athletics, I'm not sure that will happen though.
Personally, I think Queen's would be better off continuing to lease the Memorial Centre than building a West Campus arena. This would cost a lot less, and the Gaels have the place pretty much to themselves these days. It's also about the same distance (or closer) to most of the student living areas, and it's certainly closer to restaurants, bars and the like. It doesn't really seem that that option is being considered, though, and that disappoints me.
The most disappointing aspect of all, though, is that in my mind, we're not getting what we put up the money for. The student contribution to the Queen's Centre was obviously controversial, but I think one of the big selling points in its favour was access to a new, state-of-the art on-campus arena for varsity and intramural hockey as well as recreational skating. Now, we don't have that, and that's unfortunate.
I don't blame Athletics for this; from the conversations I've had, it doesn't sound like they were the ones who proposed the idea or made the decision, and I don't think you can blame them for the problems with the Queen's Centre that are forcing all the cost-cutting. I am disappointed in the university administration for not recognizing that an arena on Main Campus is essential to the Queen's Centre, and I'm very disappointed in the AMS for not standing up and protesting about this. Students signed on to this project partly because of the promise of a new arena; student leaders should speak up about it getting relocated.
The most disappointing point, though, is how this was handled. The decision has been practically made (the arena's not even in the blueprints any more), but doesn't technically come until March. Last week at the town hall on the Queen's Centre, associate vice-principal (facilities) Ann Browne spent part of her presentation talking about how great it would be to have the arena on West Campus as if the decision was done, but then rapidly backtracked when I asked her point-blank about it. On the plus side, Director of Athletics and Recreation Leslie Dal Cin and associate dean of student affairs Roxy Dennison-Stewart were willing to talk about it on the record yesterday, which is a big step forward. I just wish that the whole situation had been announced up front in a forum like that town hall to give students the opportunity to debate its merits instead of taking the arena off the blueprints without telling anyone.
This could all work out. Director of Athletics and Recreation Leslie Dal Cin and associate director (facilities) Herb Steacy made some good points in my meeting with them yesterday about how just a fieldhouse (instead of the orginal fieldhouse/arena) is a superior multi-purpose facility for large concerts/assemblies/exams and the like, and that's something we could certainly use. Moreover, maybe by the time the arena's actually built there will be enough infrastructure on West Campus to make the trek actually worthwhile. We could wind up with a great new athletics complex out there, and maybe students will flock to it. For the moment, though, any silver linings I find keep getting covered up by new clouds.
Unfortunately, that's what I see happening with this new project if and when the West Campus arena gets built. Yes, some students make the pilgrimage out there for football, but that's quite a bit different; it's during a warmer part of the year, there's always been more buzz around football than hockey here and the games are in the afternoon instead of at night. Believe me, walking back from the desolate wasteland of West Campus is bad enough on a nice afternoon; it's far worse on the sort of frigid winter night we have in Kingston far too often for my taste. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe students will embrace this, especially if the rest of the West Campus redesign goes ahead (and they actually put a bar or something out there; it's in the middle of absolutely nowhere at the moment). Given the apathy that seems to exist towards varsity athletics, I'm not sure that will happen though.
Personally, I think Queen's would be better off continuing to lease the Memorial Centre than building a West Campus arena. This would cost a lot less, and the Gaels have the place pretty much to themselves these days. It's also about the same distance (or closer) to most of the student living areas, and it's certainly closer to restaurants, bars and the like. It doesn't really seem that that option is being considered, though, and that disappoints me.
The most disappointing aspect of all, though, is that in my mind, we're not getting what we put up the money for. The student contribution to the Queen's Centre was obviously controversial, but I think one of the big selling points in its favour was access to a new, state-of-the art on-campus arena for varsity and intramural hockey as well as recreational skating. Now, we don't have that, and that's unfortunate.
I don't blame Athletics for this; from the conversations I've had, it doesn't sound like they were the ones who proposed the idea or made the decision, and I don't think you can blame them for the problems with the Queen's Centre that are forcing all the cost-cutting. I am disappointed in the university administration for not recognizing that an arena on Main Campus is essential to the Queen's Centre, and I'm very disappointed in the AMS for not standing up and protesting about this. Students signed on to this project partly because of the promise of a new arena; student leaders should speak up about it getting relocated.
The most disappointing point, though, is how this was handled. The decision has been practically made (the arena's not even in the blueprints any more), but doesn't technically come until March. Last week at the town hall on the Queen's Centre, associate vice-principal (facilities) Ann Browne spent part of her presentation talking about how great it would be to have the arena on West Campus as if the decision was done, but then rapidly backtracked when I asked her point-blank about it. On the plus side, Director of Athletics and Recreation Leslie Dal Cin and associate dean of student affairs Roxy Dennison-Stewart were willing to talk about it on the record yesterday, which is a big step forward. I just wish that the whole situation had been announced up front in a forum like that town hall to give students the opportunity to debate its merits instead of taking the arena off the blueprints without telling anyone.
This could all work out. Director of Athletics and Recreation Leslie Dal Cin and associate director (facilities) Herb Steacy made some good points in my meeting with them yesterday about how just a fieldhouse (instead of the orginal fieldhouse/arena) is a superior multi-purpose facility for large concerts/assemblies/exams and the like, and that's something we could certainly use. Moreover, maybe by the time the arena's actually built there will be enough infrastructure on West Campus to make the trek actually worthwhile. We could wind up with a great new athletics complex out there, and maybe students will flock to it. For the moment, though, any silver linings I find keep getting covered up by new clouds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
