The new Thunderbird Winter Sports Centre is currently applying for an amendment to their liquor-primary licence. The matter will be coming before Metro Vancouver's Electoral Area committee for approval this Friday and there seems to be a significant hurdle in the way: as a result of past violations, the RCMP does not support it.
Thunderbird Arena currently has a liquor-primary licence which covers the seating area in Father Bauer arena as well as the location of the former Thunderbar. When the new facility was erected around Father Bauer arena, the new areas were not covered under the existing liquor licence. As a result, UBC Athletics is applying for an amendment to the existing liquor-primary licence to cover the seating area and floor of the new arena. This application is not only in UBC's interests, VANOC wants it too. It's in the venue agreement, and so UBC does as VANOC wants.
As required by Metro Vancouver, some public meetings were held to discuss the plans and get feedback. Predictably, and in this case fortunately, the UNA objected to some of the items in the application. Because the process of obtaining an amendment to a liquor licence is tedious, Athletics threw in everything they think they might want at some time in the future, even if they don't need or want it at present, to leave themselves more flexibility. This resulted in some absurdities, such as proposed serving hours stretching all the way from 9 am until 2 am, and the licencing of an outdoor patio area that they currently don't have any use for.
The 9 am start is interesting to me; I don't think there was any particular reason for it other than that they were asking for everything they could. By doing so, UBC is now on the record as not objecting to morning drinking, starting as early as 9. On the application form the reason put forth for the early start time was so that people can drink mimosas – maybe it should have listed Beerios instead.
Regardless, things were going relatively smoothly until the RCMP dropped a bombshell. In a four-page letter (linked above; highly recommended reading), S/Sgt Kevin Kenna outlines some serious violations that have occurred at past events in the arena and that they do not feel Athletics is capable of living up to their responsibilities. What happened to prompt this strong objection?
"In order to promote events in the interim while the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch is considering the application, UBC has been granted a Temporary Change to its existing licence in order to allow a beer garden during certain events at the arenas. Management of the Temporary Change licence has been problematic and the Licensing Branch has had to rescind its approval after complaints about beer garden use at a recent concert." - David Boote, planner with Metro Vancouver
So Athletics got a Temporary Change, but that was rescinded due to poor management. At the next concert, they instead got a Special Occasion Licence (SOL). How did that work out?
"At a recent event where a Special Occasion License was obtained for a beer garden, there was such blatant abuse of liquor service (operating two beer gardens, poor security, over service) that all future events were not allowed to apply for a Special Occasion License." - S/Sgt Kenna, RCMP
Strike two. Without the Temporary Change licence and no chance at an SOL, the next event had no alcohol service. Problem solved, right?
"Despite the fact that the next concert was [non-alcoholic], both drugs and alcohol did make their way into the event. The police encountered minors in possession and consuming both alcohol and narcotics. As well, there were many inebriated persons either on the main floor or in the stands or back stage. Numerous patrons were observed smoking marijuana in the "mosh pit" as well as parts of the stands. During this event a male was "head butted" and required an ambulance to take him to the hospital. Before this event even started, there was a lot of "pre-drinking" outside the Centre and in the nearby Thunderbird Parkade." - S/Sgt Kenna, RCMP
Well, shit. There's no way these people should get a liquor licence. Ultimately though, the RCMP concludes they are willing to work with UBC to resolve the outstanding issues, but until it is all resolved, the RCMP does not support any liquor licence amendments. Brian Sullivan penned a response acknowledging past problems and promising to do better, but also trying to claim that they have an "established record of success" running licenced events. Can you imagine the fallout if such serious violations occurred repeatedly at student-organized events? I can't imagine saying "my bad" and promising to do better in the future would get you anywhere at all with the RCMP and the University. Someone please teach me how UBC gets away with this stuff.
All of this makes me worried. With liquor issues, one bad apple spoils the whole bushel. The RCMP would like to enforce every group the same way so they are not seen as playing favorites, though this doesn't happen in practice. While this approach is both fair and unfair at the same time, the result is that a small subset of troublemakers has the potential to cause real problems to the majority of groups that do follow the rules surrounding liquor regulations. Of course Athletics has promised to clean up their act, but why didn't that happen when any of the major infractions occurred in the first place? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Not only that, these are only the issues only from Thunderbird arena. Athletics also gets SOLs for Varsity games and does not follow the rules in getting those either! Their track record is established and it's dismal. Students get a bad rep for being irresponsible with alcohol but the worst violations are arising elsewhere.
The other way I see this liquor-primary licence as a problem is that currently the RCMP puts a cap on SOLs, based on how many people are supposedly attending these events in a given night. Once that cap is hit, they stop giving out SOLs for that day. For example, the RCMP will not approve SOLs for August 14th due to the Warped Tour occurring at Thunderbird Stadium even though the Warped Tour will not have any liquor service. Any night with a large event at the arena will lower the capacity for student-run events. I am also going to assume that the revenue from these concerts is going into Athletics's bottom line but that very little of it ends up going back into student programs. I would love to see evidence which suggests I'm wrong about this, but I don't think I will ever see that. The university is catering primarily to non-students, having negative impacts on student-run events; this is the War on Fun in a nutshell.
Finally, this warms my heart:
It is my belief that the UBC Athletics Department is moving too fast with their planned events at Thunderbird Centre, especially music concerts; and that profit is the main objective rather than ensuring that community interests are taken into consideration and looked after now and in the future. - S/Sgt Kenna, RCMP
Sing it, brother! This is the gospel I have been preaching far and wide. I don't want to start off on an even longer rant, but the ancillary model for UBC Athletics is broken. Too much of the department's attention is focused on increasing revenues without considering whether it is actually serving the UBC community effectively. There is not nearly enough accountability to those ultimately paying the bills and shouldering the impacts. I am immensely pleased to see that others see it the same way as well and I hope UBC is paying attention.
Showing posts with label Athletics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Athletics. Show all posts
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Did The Killers Kill the Liquor at Thunderbird Arena?
Sunday, June 21, 2009
More from the CIS AGM
The Coles notes version of this post was already published: CIS restricts dual membership with NCAA.
Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS), the organization that governs high-performance sport at the post-secondary level, held its Annual General Meeting from June 8-12 in Gatineau, Quebec.
When UBC decided to defer its decision on NCAA membership until at least 2010, one of the reasons cited was unresolved issues reagarding CIS. In the context of potential NCAA membership, the three main issues identified were (1) Dual membership rules, (2) Athletic Financial Aid rules and (3) Quality of competition within Canada West. The CIS AGM is the only time of year where these issues can be dealt with formally by the CIS membership.
Due to my inordinate interest in athletics at UBC, and the NCAA isssue, I went to check it out.
FYI, the 90-page agenda package is here, including all of the committee reports and background documentation for the few of you who might care. I will pull out things that are more pertinent. Also, the CIS put up their own summary of happenings at the AGM. Their summary is very incomplete, so keep reading.
DAY 1
Day 1 started with some of the more preliminary activities: approval of minutes, and reports from individuals and committees.
Dick White, Athletic Director at the University of Regina and outgoing CIS president, and Marg McGregor, CIS CEO, gave opening remarks. Both of their speeches addressed many of the points contained in the CIS's Ten Point Plan (TPP). This is a collection of priorities which are designed to help the CIS achieve its vision of being the "destination of choice for Canadian student-athletes." It is essentially their version of a strategic planning document and was a very central theme throughout the meeting.
Both speeches were based around the idea that the CIS is not meeting its potential and that changes must be made to help the CIS improve. Dick White spoke mostly about the future and about the need for member buy-in to make change happen while Marg McGregor, who at times was extremely quotable, summarized the CIS's recent activities. In reference to the TPP, she said she wants it to be "CIS's elevator music: it's always playing in the background." When addressing the issue of the NCAA she portrayed them as Wal-Mart, with CIS being the mom and pop corner store.
For the most part, committee reports did not deviate significantly from the written reports in the agenda package. A quick wrap-up of some of the developments from the speeches and reports:
- Edmonton's bid for the 2015 Universiade lost out to Gwangju, South Korea
- The CIS launched new logos (top) to replace their previous one (bottom)
- A planned expansion of the Women's Basketball championship to 16 teams was pushed back for another year. The stated reason was prudence due to the current economic situation.
- CIS secured a major sponsorship deal with Research in Motion
- They are trying to catch up to new media with a Facebook page, a Twitter feed, a Flickr page and a channel on Youtube.
A few things that are on the horizon for the upcoming year:
- Clint Hamilton, UVic's athletic director, taking over as CIS president.
- Conduct a thorough exploration of how the CIS can partner with the CCAA (Canadian Colleges Athletic Association). This is awaiting government funding.
- Continue trying to adapt how the CIS deals with media. With many writers now doing blogs (holla!), press releases may not be the best way anymore.
- Leverage big national championships (basketball, football) in order to ensure a minimum level of service to national championships across all sports.
- Continue looking at governance reform and financial aid rules in the CIS.
The afternoon of Day 1 was then devoted to discussion sessions. The structure of the AGM is a little curious, since there is a lot of time devoted to these sessions, but at the same time, there are very few bona fide motions coming to the floor to deal with those issues. Lots of interesting ideas regarding eligibility, CIS championships, branding and governance were expressed, but whether any follow-up will occur on these ideas is anyone's guess.
DAY 2
Day 2 started off with a presentation from UWO's football coach Larry Haylor, on Canada's participation in the 2011 World Football Championship, which would in all likelihood involve CIS football players. After that, there was a presentation on a new system for locating football and hockey players in order to administer drug tests.
On a side note, the stats surrounding drug testing in the CIS really surprised me. Last year, four players were caught doping: one for steroids, three for marijuana use. My initial reaction was that university sport in Canada must be very clean, since there was only one violation (I disregard the pot violations since I'm sure it was not used for the purpose of boosting athletic performance). A closer look at the numbers seems to point in a different direction: the CIS boasts having over 10,000 student-athletes across Canada, but only 269 drug tests were administered last year. I realize administering these tests is probably costly, but it strikes me as being extremely low! Is the lack of violations really because the players are clean, or might it have to do with inadequate testing?
At long last, the discussion turned toward my raison d'être, the NCAA.
Background: A motion was brought to the 2008 CIS AGM which would have prohibited all dual membership. This would have been a very problematic policy not just for UBC, but for a number of schools in Canada. Ultimately, this motion was laid on the table while more discussion on the issue could occur. In the year since, during the entire process of examining the NCAA issue, UBC has been waiting patiently to find out what, if anything, the CIS would say about dual membership restrictions. In the last year, the CIS commissioned a report about the NCAA which was based upon both research and feedback received from members (I haven't read it). The NCAA was also discussed in depth at an April 2009 members meeting. The results of that meeting, in the eyes of the CIS board, was a call to action. Theresa Hanson (director of varsity sports at UBC) told me that in her opinion, the results of the April members meeting were inconclusive at best, only reaffirming that the NCAA was a divisive subject. Nevertheless, the motion that finally came from the CIS is board was:
The first speaker was Dr. David Murphy, athletic Director of SFU. He said that the posturing coming from the CIS was that they are trying to go forward with strength and boldness, but when he looks at the motion it reeks of insecurity and protectionism. In sports, all the schools in the room are in the business of competition. Why, then, should the CIS be afraid of competition, rather than using it as a catalyst to step up their own game? He also brought up that in the academic realm, being worldly and looking globally is considered a virtue. It's recognized as a good thing to broaden people's education and this motion flies in the face of that idea. He added that he doesn't think the NCAA will ever result in a mass migration of schools and that SFU is a very special case. To him, this motion is simply a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat.
The response from Katie Sheahan (Concordia) was that she didn't think this motion was borne out of a defensive reaction, but instead that it is the responsible thing to do since the NCAA has the potential to seriously damage the financial health of the CIS. She also held the view that Dr. Murphy had oversimplified the issue and that the CIS board truly feels that the motion reflects the feelings of members at the April 2009 meeting.
Ivan Joseph (Ryerson) then expressed his view that the CIS's "destination of choice" mantra was more about keeping Canadian student athletes in Canada, not necessarily in the CIS. In that sense, this motion would not help that goal. To him, allowing institutions to have more options would also give Canadian student-athletes more options, hopefully keeping more of them in Canada.
Gord Grace (Windsor) brought up an interesting point that CIS membership is separate from membership in the regional associations (AUS, QSSF, OUA and Canada West). His example was thus: supposing Windsor joined the NCAA and were prohibited from being CIS members, they would still be allowed to do all their league play in the OUA. In theory, Windsor's football team could end up winning the OUA championship, but be ineligible to play in the Vanier Cup because Windsor was not in the CIS. If something like that were to ever occur, it would be embarrassing.
Ken Schildroth (York) asked why this motion applied only to the NCAA and not the NAIA.
Dick White responded that the CIS board felt there was a clear distinction between the NCAA and the NAIA in terms of how powerful their brands are. The NAIA does not pose a big threat to the CIS, but the NCAA does due to their extremely high level of recognition. As a result they didn't think it was appropriate to lump them together.
Theresa Hanson (UBC) had the floor next and acknowledged that the NCAA issue is extremely complex, but that one of the great things about the CIS has been its respect for the autonomy of the individual institutions. If UBC ultimately decides that the NCAA is best, UBC's autonomy should be respected.
Clint Hamilton (UVic, incoming CIS president) wanted to make it clear that the CIS board has been devoting a lot of time to this issue and has been taking it quite seriously. Through the entire process, he has repeatedly heard how it's good for institutions, but has never heard any argument about why it's good for the CIS. The board wants to do what's best for the CIS, and the evidence seems to show it would be damaging to CIS from a number of angles (ex. sponsorship, marketing, recruiting) by allowing a stronger brand to get a foothold here.
Dick White (Regina, outgoing CIS president) then acknowledged that the motion may appear to be protectionist, but in his opinion that would only be true if this was done in isolation. To him, it's just one part of a bigger campaign to strengthen the CIS. Allowing the NCAA to enter Canada would put the CIS in a position of weakness and the fact that schools want to put some of their sports in the NCAA and some in the CIS says to him that the CIS is viewed merely a league of convenience. He also stated that he didn't think this is an issue of autonomy since there are many instances where people give up autonomy. He encouraged everyone to support the motion and thought it was one of the most important motions in a number of years
Pat Murray (CIS VP Marketing) pointed out that they just want schools to show commitment to the CIS; that you're either in or you're out.
David Murphy (SFU) took the floor again to express his worry that there may be a lot of misinformation out there and that SFU's move to the NCAA won't be painless for anyone involved, including SFU. They just support the ability to choose. Rather than trying to shut out competition, the CIS just needs to learn to adapt and will ultimately be successful.
Marg McGregor (CIS CEO) then took the opportunity to respond to a number of point that had been raised. She acknowledged that the CIS was being protective of their interests and that they were doing so in the best interests of the CIS, stating unequivocally, "I make no apologies for trying to protect the CIS." She also acknowledged that choice is important at the institutional level, but that everyone also needs to take the national interests into account. On the topic of looking globally, she said that the CIS already has rules in place about foreign players, so recognizing and protecting Canadian interests is nothing new. She ended by warning that if the motion was defeated, it would make the CIS a weak and vulnerable organization.
The last word went to Leo MacPherson (St. FX) who said that his institution, and all those Atlantic Canada, were largely ambivalent about this issue since there was no threat of losing AUS members to the NCAA. He urged every school who felt ambivalent about this motion to show their support to the CIS board and vote in favour.
Phew. So there you have it. I was quite surprised that UBC did not speak up more, or offer a more compelling argument than the need for institutional autonomy. (Bob Philip was not present to give his take: he had to fly back to Vancouver earlier in the day.) However, at the same time, I kinda doubt it would have made any difference. It really seemed like everyone had made up their mind beforehand; no one was about to be swayed either way by the arguments put forth. That comes as no surprise. That's the pattern you see whenever you talk about the NCAA in Canada.
The two discussion periods that followed were about Athletic Financial Aid (AFA) and partnering with the CCAA. I won't go into to much detail, suffice it to say that it seems unlikely that there will be any significant movement on the AFA front in the near future. They are going to 'explore' a flexible scholarship model, but the AFA committee did a survey of schools and found that there is little traction for major changes to AFA policy.
In the afternoon of day 2 is when the voting finally occurred (like I said, AGM structure is a bit odd where discussion and voting happen separately). For the record:
CIS members are not permitted to play in the NCAA in sports that are offered by CIS.
For: 55 Against: 20
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CIS members are not permitted to play in the NAIA in sports that are offered by CIS, unless they also compete in that sport within CIS, effective September 2011.
For: 64 Against: 19
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CIS support in principle the exploration of a flexible scholarship model in concert with striking a Board Task Force to do further study and review to address the challenges and issues that CIS members have identified.
Carried
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The AFA motion is pretty toothless, but the NAIA motion has the potential to further complicate things for UBC. Theresa Hanson identified Cross Country as the sport it would affect most.
So what's next for UBC on the NCAA front? As far as I can tell, not much. Trying to get some clarity on accreditation seems to be the only major outstanding issue that needs to be addressed. (Of course, I still consider the distribution of funds from the athletic fee, and the structure and transparency of UBC Athletics major outstanding issues that need to be addressed - but I am probably alone on that.)
What will be helpful over the next year is that SFU, apparently completely undeterred by the accreditation requirement, already submitted their application. Over the next year, UBC will be able to simply watch from the sidelines to see how the application process unfolds. During that time, it may be possible to reach the point where nothing except careful deliberation is standing in the way of hearing the outcome. However, I'm not sure anyone is in a hurry to get there quite yet.
Friday, June 12, 2009
CIS restricts dual membership with NCAA
The Ubyssey-edited version of this can be found at ubyssey.ca.
Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS), the organization which governs high-performance athletics at Canadian universities, sent a bold message to schools looking to join the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) at their annual general meeting on Thursday. Voting 55-20 in favour, CIS members instituted a policy which places stringent restrictions on schools who pursue membership in both the CIS and the NCAA. Under the new rule, member schools are only allowed to play in the NCAA in sports not offered by the CIS.
“The NCAA is a gigantic, multi-sport business entity and quite frankly the CIS is not. So we believe that it could be a threat to the existence of CIS and we reacted accordingly,” said Dick White, University of Regina athletic director and outgoing CIS president. “I hope it at least creates some pause for thought, but I also understand that the school and its athletic director and its president will ultimately make a decision which they think is best.”
The two schools in question are UBC and SFU, the only CIS members who have openly expressed interest in the NCAA. SFU's senior athletic director Dr. David Murphy spoke passionately against the membership restrictions during the meeting, arguing that it “reeks of insecurity and protectionism,” and that the CIS shouldn't shy away from competition, but rather use it as an opportunity to better itself and grow stronger. Dr. Murphy expressed his regret that the new rule was adopted, but that SFU's plans are already in motion:“The [NCAA] application form is in. We wait, and we find out in July whether or not we have been accepted.”
For UBC, which deferred its decision regarding NCAA application until at least 2010, this provides one more piece of the puzzle. Uncertainty over what action, if any, the CIS would take regarding dual membership has long been one of the sticking points in the university's consideration of NCAA membership. While the new rule is not an outright ban on dual membership, it essentially makes the pursuit of the NCAA an all-or-nothing proposal since the pool of sports offered by the NCAA but not by the CIS is very narrow.
“We're not saying 'you can't join',” explained CIS CEO Marg McGregor. “UBC and SFU and any university that wants to can join. But as a result of that, we will not be the league of convenience. We want to be the league of choice.”
The issue of personal choice was indeed one of the key reasons UBC opposed the new rule. “I speak in favour of dual membership because I believe it does provide universities choices,” said Theresa Hanson, director of varsity athletics at UBC. “From a dual membership perspective, we could still make a commitment to CIS sport, continue some sports in Canada as well as move a considerable number of sports to the NCAA.”
UBC and SFU were not the only schools to oppose the new rule, with a handful of other schools also expressing their disapproval. Ivan Joseph of Ryerson opposed the change because he thought allowing dual membership would enable more Canadian athletes to stay at Canadian schools. Jennifer Brenning from Carleton was also opposed, pointing to the fact that the CIS now has three different sets of dual membership rules depending on whether you want to play in the NCAA, the NAIA, or the CCAA. Before this year, the CIS had no policy at all on dual membership.
While uncertainty surrounding dual membership has finally come to an end, the result doesn't make UBC's NCAA decision any easier. One of the biggest issues, academic accreditation, remains unresolved and Theresa Hanson acknowledges that the closer you examine the issue of NCAA membership, the more complex it becomes.“I think it provides more challenges, the outcome, but I really think that [Toope] will make a decision that's in the best interests of the university and of our student athletes.”
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
NCAA Committee Results
After almost a year, the NCAA Division II Review Committee has finally released its final report regarding UBC-V’s potential application to NCAA Division II. At 588 pages including appendices it’s a monster, but unless you are an absolute nut for documents, the first 28 should suffice, along with the Consultation Summary Report which was posted online earlier this month (also included in the overall report).
So what exactly does it say?
I will mention at this point that I sit on the NCAA committee as a representative of the AMS (and by extension, students at large) and was involved in the whole process of arriving at this final document, so I hope you'll excuse me if I'm very careful in my analysis. I should also point out the obvious fact that I am speaking on behalf of myself only, not on behalf of the committee.
I would also like to say that at the beginning of this process, many people had fears that this would be a rubber-stamp, faux-consultation situation. I hope that after reading the report and consultation summary, no one continues to feel that way.
The first important thing to note in this report is what it doesn't say. While there are recommendations contained within, it does not take a stand on the whole underlying issue: should UBC join the NCAA Division II?
While the committee could not come up with a definitive answer, President Toope will have to (but not necessarily soon.) Publicly he has been very quiet on the subject of the NCAA and it's impossible to guess what the final outcome will be.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Do you agree or disagree that UBC Vancouver should proceed with an application for membership in the NCAA Division II?
Agree – 48%
Disagree – 52%
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
What is clear is that it will take a lot of leadership to simply make a decision - any decision. One of the recommendations contained in the report is that UBC complete its communications plan prior to announcing its decision. The cynical view of this recommendation is that UBC will be trying to use a PR campaign to push through an unpopular decision. Unfortunately for UBC and the cynics out there, any decision they make will be unpopular, which is why this recommendation is vital. If public opinion above is to be believed, the outcome is the same: you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Recommendation A: Should UBC Vancouver decide to proceed with an application for membership in the NCAA Division II, the committee recommends that the University, prior to making any application for membership, seek an exemption from the requirement of academic accreditation.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This is a BIG DEAL. NCAA bylaws require all member institutions to be accredited by a US accrediting agency. While some faculties like Sauder and Medicine already get US accreditation, most of the university doesn't. As mentioned in the report, the accreditation process would cost, at minimum, $500k-$1M every year. The university would be the one paying for this, diverting these funds from research and learning. Dealbreaker #1.
As well, many areas of the university would have to alter the way they develop curricula to suit the new accreditation requirements. You would need widespread buy-in from faculty to make this happen and that doesn't seem likely. Dealbreaker #2.
Seeking US accreditation simply so that our sports teams can play in the NCAA is absurd. It's possible that the NCAA could exempt UBC from this accreditation requirement, with the recognition that we already have Canadian accreditation and oh yeah, we're pretty reputable to boot. If that exemption comes, the door to the NCAA is still open. If not, that door is slammed shut.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
...members of Division II believe that a well-conducted intercollegiate athletics program, based on sound educational principles and practices, is a proper part of the educational mission of a university or college and that the educational well-being and academic success of the participating student-athlete is of primary concern.
-From NCAA Division II Philosophy Statement
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
One of the things that needs to be made clear is that Div II != Div I, and that's a good thing. Div II does have a strong commitment to academics and it appears this commitment isn't simply idle chatter. It was refreshing to learn that schools in Division II take this ethos seriously and practice it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The committee believes that were UBC Vancouver to join the NCAA Division II, there would be an inherent pressure to seek membership in Division I.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Of course, it's never that simple, right? UC-San Diego is a fascinating case study and the only academic comparator to UBC in Division II. Formerly a Division III school, they moved up to Division II because they were simply too large of a school to fit with other Division III schools. Despite moving up, they are now facing pressure to move up again, to Division I. Alarmingly, it is believed that if UBC were in Division II, we would also be under constant pressure to move up to Division I. For UBC, the thought of Division I should be absolutely out of the question for so many reasons that I don't have enough fingers and toes to count them.
Much of this pressure to move up is inherent in being an institution which is much larger than your peers. Based on my research, of the 282 Division II schools, only 6 have more than 20,000 students (UCSD is second most populous, at ~29,000). UBC would easily eclipse those schools in size. If UCSD were to move up to Division I, UBC would be left with no academic comparators in Division II, likely adding even more pressure for UBC to move up as well.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The student body at the University of California, San Diego, an academic comparator to UBC Vancouver, exhibits a level of campus interest in varsity athletics that is not dissimilar to that seen at UBC Vancouver. This is explained in part by the fact that students do not see the competing Division II member institutions as what can be termed “fraternal institutions”.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In the consultation discussion guide the only potential benefit listed for regular students is "enhancing school spirit and pride". The committee found that it is extremely unlikely that having the NCAA on campus will have any positive effect on fan support. In fact, it might even get worse since the Division II schools have zero name recognition. Getting people out to games requires marketing, plain and simple, and that can be done regardless of where UBC plays.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
These financial indicators suggest that Athletics and Recreation is in a sound financial position as evidenced by its seven-figure net income in each of the past two years.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The revelation that UBC Athletics is in a good financial situation should come as news to no one. Although Athletics has certain unrealistic financial expectations regarding joining the NCAA (such as >100% increase in gate revenues), in the short term joining the NCAA wouldn't change the budgets much.
What happens after the short term is the unanswered million-dollar question (or more likely a multi-million dollar question). UBC's varsity budget currently stands at about CAD$4.5M. The average varsity budget of a NCAA Division II school with football in the first quartile is around USD$9M (at current exchange rates, about CAD$11M.) As mentioned above, UBC would be by far the largest school in Division II. In the long term, would UBC Athletics be happy at current varsity funding levels? Or would they try to drastically increase their varsity budget to bring it in line with other large Division II schools?
So what about UCSD, who moved up from Div III? Well, in 2007 they passed a fee referendum that saw their athletics fee more than triple, going from $95 to $329 (!) This increase effectively doubled the budget of their athletic department, in order to put them in the same realm as other large Division II schools.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
UBC Vancouver’s consideration of application for membership in the NCAA Division II has proved a catalyst for opening discussions about changes to the CIS.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) is still a big question mark, in that they have been oddly silent. While there have been meetings between UBC and CIS officials, nothing particularly notable came out of them. CIS did release a document last October in an attempt to demonstrate their commitment to excellence but it isn't clear if action is following their words. While visiting Ottawa in February, I went into the CIS offices to ask if they had released anything else relevant since then. The answer was no.
Whether or not CIS intends on changing anything is still a mystery. Hopefully more will be revealed at the CIS AGM in early June. Bob Philip was asked about whether he would still want to be in the NCAA if CIS were to adopt NCAA-style financial aid rules and a higher calibre of play. The response was a non-committal. For athletics, it seems like the dislike of CIS goes deeper than just the rules on the surface.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The committee observed that the operations of UBC Athletics and Recreation were not well understood by the academic units of the university.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
And that brings us to the last recommendation: an advisory committee to facilitate communication between Athletics and the academic departments. UBC seems to be very committee-happy though that might be a symptom of any large organization. All I can say is that it's not a bad idea, but if a committee of this type is formed, it needs to have some real powers, not just talk about things. Being able to report directly to the president, as proposed in the report, would give this committee some much-needed clout.
I encourage you to read the report for the full story and to make up your own mind. I hope the Ubyssey has something upcoming on this report, since they (Justin McElroy in particular) have had lots of meaningful NCAA coverage this year.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
UBC and the NCAA
[I’d meant to write this sooner, but work commitments sapped my time and writing energies. As well, there’s a very good Ubyssey article on the subject; read it here. I also note that there has been some discussion at AMS Exec about the Athletics fee; I’m not sure what it is, and I’m not sure on the latest developments.]
The annual NCAA men’s Division I basketball championship is coming up in a couple weeks. I’m excited. But did you know that UBC could compete in it as soon as a decade from now? More importantly, did you know that, even if you don’t give a rat’s ass about sports or athletics, you should still care?
The NCAA is the US collegiate sports authority. It’s big. There are no non-US members. They recently voted to allow non-US members into Division II (their second tier) on a provisional basis. UBC harbours an intense desire to join the NCAA. Why? Better competition, more exposure, better development opportunities, and fewer restrictions on offering scholarships. In short, Athletics wants to be bigger.
But here’s the thing about joining the NCAA. It’ll cost a ton. Initially, only a few sports would join, which would only require an internal budgetary re-allocation within Athletics. But UBC’s athletics facilities generally are far below the requirements for NCAA competition. They need upgrading. And that’s where students come in.
Right now, students pay a levy of nearly $200 to Athletics and Recreation. There’s long been a simmering undercurrent of resentment about it, as students still have to pay for gym memberships and intramural events. Indeed, UBC is among the only universities in Canada whose students still have to pay for gym passes. UBC Athletics has also long desired to upgrade the SRC, which contains the Bird Coop. But they can’t do it without student support. Nor can they get through any of the other development they need to do in the face of student opposition. Indeed, there’s a chance that an attempt to raise funds could trigger a backlash and threaten their existing mandatory student funding.
Heck, everybody is a being cautious about joining the NCAA, including the NCAA itself. If students opposed it outright, that could easily scuttle the project.
What a smart student leader should see here is leverage. There are many ways in which Athletics can enrich the student experience. They could provide free gym passes to people other than varsity athletes, reduce Storm the Wall fees, co-operate with a renewed SUB to include free student fitness components (see Mike Duncan’s campaign platform). Because right now we have an Athletics department that can’t afford to provide free exercise equipment or affordable intramurals to students, yet is seeking to spend more on performance athletics. And that’s a tension that students can profit from. Indeed, it’s a no-lose proposition. Yes, there have been conversations about a new Athletics fee, but I’m not sure if the NCAA application has, on the student side, played a role in the negotiation. And it should.
I have no idea what the progress of the NCAA decision is. But the deadline to apply for 2009 membership is June 1 – very very soon. Students should demand to know what’s happening, and demand to play a role in the process before it’s too late.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
