Why UBC Should Not Join the NCAA

Posted by: | September 24, 2008 | 17 Comments

The issue of whether or not UBC should join the NCAA has been around for years and the discussion is reaching a peak with major consultations set to occur. I’ve been to a consultation meeting already and through my discussions with people on all sides of this issue, I think I’ve heard all of the major arguments for and against. Based on what I’ve heard, it has become very clear to me that joining the NCAA has overwhelming negative consequences for UBC and indicates a further deprioritization of non-varsity students by Athletics and Rec.

Without getting too much into the details, UBC-V has 361 athletes competing on 8 men’s varsity sports teams and 9 women’s teams. The varsity teams are members of either Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) or the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA). In 2008, the NCAA Division II members voted to accept a 10-year pilot project to allow Canadian institutions to apply for membership. This has opened the door for UBC to apply for Division II, a desire that has been motivated by the Athletics and Rec department since the 1990’s.

Cited Reasons to Join

  • Increased level of competition. UBC teams have had tremendous success, continuously winning championships. It is speculated that the NCAA Division II will offer a higher level of competition for these teams. But even if this speculation is granted as true, an increased level of competition only benefits certain varsity teams. For other teams, the CIS or NAIA offer the appropriate level of competition. Some varsity athletes have expressed the concern that the NCAA is not appropriate for their teams.
  • Put people in the stands. Students at UBC are not going out to watch their teams compete, even when they’re winning all the time. Stands are regularly near empty and it is hoped that the prestige of the NCAA will get UBC students interested in their athletics teams. But increasing interest in athletics, as many of the student athletes themselves argue, is not best achieved by joining the NCAA. Interest in the NCAA stems primarily from Division I competition, not Division II. And if you look at the membership of the conference that UBC would be playing in, all of them are no-name schools. Who’s going to get excited because the Notre Dame de Namur University is coming to campus?
  • Attract more athletes to UBC. The assertion is that the high school kid’s dream of playing in the NCAA will attract them to enrole at UBC. The major oversight here is that the dream is to play in NCAA Division I, not Division II.
  • Bigger scholarships. The CIS and NAIA set restrictions on the financial incentives UBC can offer athletes to the cost of tuition and ancillary fees (NAIA covers room and board too). Under NCAA regulations, UBC would be able to offer prospective students lucrative scholarships, much like those offered in the United States. Athletics has no conception of how much this will cost, but they did say that it wouldn’t be in effect until at least 2013. This point raises questions about how we want to use limited funds to attract students to UBC. Should we place the emphasis on varsity athletes or on underrepresented groups and high achieving students?
  • Increased fundraising. Athletics argues that the prestige of the NCAA will motivate a new $75 million fundraising campaign. Once again though, there is not really any prestige associated with Division II. How can we be sure that Athletics’ level of confidence in their ambitious fundraising goal is merited? If they don’t pull through with fundraising, the cost will fall on students. There is also an issue of equality of funding between men’s and women’s sports teams. Many donors will specify that they only want to contribute to a certain team, which usually turns out to be a men’s team. As a result, there is a huge disparity in funding both between the sports, but also between men’s and women’s teams.

Reasons Not to Join

  • Accreditation and SAT. If UBC were to join the NCAA, the University would have to undergo accreditation and meet standards laid out by the United States. The implications of this are not entirely clear to me, but allowing the US to have any influence over the operation of our autonomous educational institution is worrisome, at the least. In addition, potential student athletes would be required to write the SAT to attend UBC and compete in varsity athletics. Forcing our domestic students to meet American standards of testing is something that should on its own raise serious doubts with regards to application to the NCAA.
  • Problems of dual membership. If UBC decided to apply and was accepted to the NCAA, they would only have observer status and not obtain full status until at least 4 years later. CIS has not yet decided on whether or not to allow dual membership for sports teams, but if they disallowed it (which is quite possible), CIS would kick out 7-8 of our sports teams and those teams would be without an organization to compete in during the 4 year observer status lag.
  • The NCAA is UnCanadian. UBC would be the only non-US institution to compete in the NCAA if we joined. Many student athletes are concerned that competing in an American sports environment is inconsistent with the values of Canadian sport.
  • Funding. All students at UBC are currently charged $207 in Athletics fees each year. This fee has been increased by UBC (illegally) by 30 times of what the cost was in 1985. Joining the NCAA will surely cost a ton more. Think about travel – half of the teams in UBC’s would-be division are located in Hawaii. Then there is the general pressure to use student money to upgrade facilities for varsity athletes that will come as a result of being a member of the NCAA. The decision to pursue the NCAA clearly indicates that Athletics’ priorities lie with the small group of varsity athletes, not the other 44,000 students. Varsity athletics is already eating up 80% of our athletics fund and it shows. Shouldn’t the priority of Athletics be on programs that benefit all students, like perhaps a free gym or intramurals?
  • Slide into Division I. Athletics Director Bob Philips has been saying since 1997 that his ultimate goal is to join Division I of the NCAA. Given the shaky foundation of arguments to join Division II, it should be fairly clear that Division II is only meant as a stepping stone to Division I. I can’t provide an analysis of the positives and negatives of joining Division I, but I do know that the average Athletics operating budget of Division I schools is over $35 million (ours is $3.7 million). We would have to increase our athletics budget tenfold to reach that level of funding. And where would the money come from? Students, of course.

Athletics is trying its best to appear as if its consultation is meaningful, but if you look at their consultation booklet, you’ll notice that it reads more like pro-NCAA propaganda material than anything else. The consultation questions are suspect as well. Look at this one: “Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: ‘Increased athletic financial aid for student-athletes through NCAA Division II membership is important.'” Athletics director Bob Philips has made it clear since day one th
at his desired legacy is to see UBC in the NCAA. It should come as no surprise that he’s running the consultation as a top-down exercise consistent with that view.

How many times now have students been ‘consulted’ on this campus only to find out that their opinions made little difference in the decision making? This is yet another example. Since the consultation sessions are being run as pro-NCAA rally sessions, the only hope for opposition lies with our student leaders.


17 Comments so far

  1. Sonja on September 24, 2008 4:56 am


    I am so glad you decided to write about this. It is so useful to have all this information in one place.

    I am going to take a very hard line stance on this and say that in my view, the vast majority of the student body sees absolutely no benefit from the University’s varsity athletics programs. I would like to see more financial aid and scholarship programs for student leaders dedicated to building campus community and/or student activism and involvement in general. I think it’s a grand shame that, for example, the Millenium Scholarship program has been scrapped, yet financial aid for varsity athletes, if UBC does join the NCAA II, will continue to rise. I think that UBC needs to do much more reward people who make really tangible contributions to university community, and here I am thinking of undergraduate society executives, club presidents, REC league directors, and others, who work 20+ hours a week for no pay except the occasional free burger.

    I am not at all denying the vast amount of effort and dedication that some students put into varsity athletics, but I can’t say that I see how doing well in a tournament improves the quality of life for anyone but the athletes themselves. If I was going to be cynical, I’d say that the only way in which varsity athletics truly affects students is by relieving us of ~$160 a year.

    I also have major issues with the fact that varsity athletics programs are so well-funded, and the fact that Athletics has been running a surplus for years, while REC programs still cost money, and we have such limited access to a pool/gym, unless we want to pay, what is it now, $4 for the pool and $8 for the BirdCoop per session?

    Let the flame war begin.

  2. Serious Steve on September 24, 2008 7:16 am

    I’d like to point out that varsity athletes do give back to the community: take a gander at http://www.gothunderbirds.ca/community.asp.

    I’m pretty sure it’s mandatory for athletes to be involved in some sort of service learning program… not exactly sure, but there you go.

    And as some of my Vanier residents showed me at homecoming, a good varsity game can really help build campus community.

    In any case, I think you both (Blake and Sonja) make very good points–and I wouldn’t go so far as to say I disagree–but I think you’re underestimating varsity sport.

  3. Mike D on September 24, 2008 5:32 pm


    Thank you very much for the post. In case people don’t know, I am taking this issue very seriously. I had a very interesting meeting with Bob Philips yesterday and am making a presentation to AMS council tonight.

    I really believe this consultation regarding the NCAA gives us an opportunity to pressure athletics and rec to do more to benefit the non-varsity student. I am more than a little concerned that the consultation is being run pro-NCAA and I have quite a few problems with the consultation booklet. That being said, athletics needs to listen somewhat, and this is the time where we can pressure them on the inherent issues of providing services.

    I am going to be starting my own consultation with students regarding the current state of affairs of athletics and rec and will be drafting up a report focusing on the following:

    -intramural cost
    -gym cost
    -facility access

    If you have feedback on any of these issues please let me know by e-mailing president@ams.ubc.ca

    And one quick correction Blake: we actually wouldn’t be the first/only Canadian university to join the NCAA. SFU has already decided to join.

    Cheers, Mike

  4. markcj on September 24, 2008 8:23 pm

    Interesting piece, but I’ll have to disagree with the post. My basis for opposition is on two levels:

    1. Campus community engagement
    2. $$$

    I don’t think it’s a secret that UBC is currently lacking an engaged community – this applies to current and former students. There needs to be something bigger to pull together some/all of the pieces in a university community external to the academics that we are all here for. Surprisingly a large bon fire in the middle of campus hasn’t whipped the student body into a frenzie of political activism. But you know what does get students together (and has been mentioned on this blog) – Beer! Beer provides a medium for bringing people together. Athletics (Rec and Varsity) plays this same medium. People like sports, so lets build around it. A stronger campus is an engaged campus so we need to find large picture solutions to this issue.

    Of course there are issues of sensitivity concerning who funds an expanded athletics program and at what cost to the current student – that’s more than fair.

    For the comment that the NCAA is Un-Canadian, I ask how is it more Canadian to let Canadian athletes go to the U.S. to play their college sports without giving them a viable option in Canada? As a former athlete at a high level you bet the first choice for an athlete is to go south to continue their athletic career, the CIS is a fallback in many cases. The fact that UBC will initially be Div II doesn’t matter – it’s a start and Canadian athletes will recognize and associate NCAA with a higher level of sport and added to the fact that they can stay in Canada will be a bonus for them.

    I think that if we do go ahead with the NCAA membership and not try to overextend our students or our programs there is a manageable way to make this a huge success for UBC – community wise and financially. In an age where government funding cuts are hurting higher education, universities need alternate sources of funding – a stronger athletic program can provide this. Tied in with the engaged community idea alumni funding can be a huge boost for a university. Right now we are significantly lacking in alumni support relative to the states specifically and there is a tremendous amount of potential growth in this area. Hence some of the recent fundraising push we’ve seen on campus.

    Just my thoughts at least, I see both sides and I do see the concerns for student fees but I think the big picture states a strong athletic program = a strong campus spirit = a better funded academic environment.

  5. Yonnnnnnnnaaaayyyyy!!!!! on September 24, 2008 9:10 pm

    Mark, I’m curious to know what you think about this. What you are postulating that having a bunch of students watching sports is a great way to build community on campus.

    Wouldn’t a more effective strategy be to remove all the barriers to having students be active participants in sports?

    I would think that the latter would be a million times more likely to succeed. The term bandied about so often is student “engagement”. Sitting on your butt in WAR watching the game doesn’t engage you nearly as much as actually being on the court playing with your buddies.

  6. markcj on September 24, 2008 9:12 pm

    Just a couple small corrections to follow up:

    1. I’m not sure where you got the number of athletes at 361 but it should be over 500, and I believe it’s actually closer to if not over 600 now, this link quotes 500

    2. Add UofAlberta to the list of uni’s interested in the NCAA. Article found on the
    UAlberta media site Not sure how far along they are in their process.

    A door to the NCAA has been opened and University of Alberta athletic director Dale Schulha would like to see his school walk through it. The U.S.-based NCAA approved a 10-year pilot program to accept select international schools into its ranks at its annual general convention in Orlando on Monday.
    Page C2; Sports

  7. markcj on September 24, 2008 9:50 pm

    Re: Yonnnnnnnnaaaayyyyy!!!!!

    A few comments..

    Absolutely, I don’t disagree that students will be engaged by playing intramurals and fully encourage greater access. I’m not sure why both scenarios can’t succeed and to be honest I’m skeptical that the current rec system is restricting that much student participation (I could be wrong, I only have anecdotal evidence from my participation).

    As for your point of students merely watching sports and how that relates to engagement. It’s the event/experience that breeds engagement not just the watching sports. It’s about feeling apart of a community or large group of like minded people. At the intramural level you can achieve that on a focused level but it’s a limited scope environment. Broader based events bring everybody associated to the experience.

    Case in point:
    Last weekend I was down in Seattle to watch the University of Washington play Oklahoma in a college football game. There were people lined up to start tail-gating at 5am. That’s community engagement! The stadium was full at 65,000 people, 10-15,000 were Oklahoma fans (presumably alumni). There were families with young kids, students, grandparents etc. It was an all day event.

    I could really care less what the medium is to drive a greater campus community engagement, it could be a circus if people were into that, but why not work to bring people together as a whole.

    Why not aspire to this (and do it properly) to build up UBC?

  8. Durgan on September 25, 2008 7:02 am

    I’ve got news for you: the Board of Governors has basically already decided to NCAA, so students really have no say in the matter.

  9. Fire Hydrant on September 25, 2008 8:44 am

    UBC joining the NCAA is anything but a done deal, and the consultation is being run by a body outside of athletics, most likely to reduce the bias.

    Another minor issue for you: Not all of our students are allowed to cross the US border, so it’s possible some student athletes currently in CIS sports might not be able to play. NCAA also has one less year of eligibility than CIS.

    One that really bothers me personally is capital funding for buildings — up to this point, students have paid for the original gym, War Memorial Gym, SRC Gym, ice rink, aquatic centre, and likely others I can’t think of. Whether these were student-initiated or not, they had to be approved by the student body. Now, Athletics has a massive capital reserve absorbing at least $20 per student per year from student fees, so the priorities for new construction are what Athletics wants, not what students want. Athletics has very little oversight of any kind, and students have little meaningful role in their governance, so this is a fundamental shift in who sets the priorities.

  10. mrcanadianmrcanuck on September 25, 2008 3:16 pm

    All students are allowed to cross the US border with proper documentation that they are currently attending school, unless they have committed a previous offense. Those that have can at least play 1/2 the games at home, wake up.

    Also, many of UBC Athletics projects are only half funded by students, while corporate and private donations take up the other parts of the projects. I guess if you weren’t too busy taking pictures of fire hydrants you might have done some reading on this topic before wasting everyone’s time.

    UBC NCAA all the way!

  11. maayan kreitzman on September 25, 2008 4:13 pm

    Hey mrcanadian, I very much doubt that too many people at ubc have done more “reading” than Hydrant here. Everyone’s views are welcome. However, personal attacks are not.

  12. Philip on September 25, 2008 6:10 pm

    Thoughts and considerations from an undergraduate student senator that sits on the NCAA Div II review committee.

    I really appreciate that Blake wrote the article about the NCAA Div II and laid out the facts as clearly as he did. Before getting into the intricacies of the discussion I want to clarify that the committee and consultation is being run very transparently with no interference from Athletics.
    – Blake wrote that:
    “ “Athletics is trying its best to appear as if its consultation is meaningful… It should come as no surprise that [Bob Philips’] is running the consultation as a top-down exercise consistent with that view.”
    1) Athletics and/or Bob Philips’ is NOT running the consultation.
    – As per the campus wide e-mail that was sent out about the consultation: “The Provost and Vice President, Academic, and the Vice President, Students, have convened a review committee to advise them and the President on the possibility of UBC Vancouver applying for membership in the NCAA Division II.”
    At our first committee meeting on April 4th, Brian Sullivan, the VP students, came and thanked us for sitting on the committee and invited us to revise our terms of reference or add committee members if we thought it necessary. (You’ll find no conspiracy about the membership of the committee.) He stressed that no decision had been made, something that President Toope echoed at the most recent Senate meeting. I certainly believe what Toope and Sullivan said about the decision having not been made.

    2) The membership of the committee is very fair, especially towards students. For a list of committee members see http://www.students.ubc.ca/ncaa/committee.cfm. You’ll notice four of the 11 committee members are students and only one committee member, Theresa Hanson, is from Athletics. Bob Philips showed up to one of our six committee meetings for all of 45 minutes. He was there to present the Athletics rationale for pushing for the right to apply to NCAA Div II. If I were back in April again I would ask for another Faculty rep. to sit on the committee. I’d ask that the second Faculty rep. come from an Arts/Social Science background. The Faculty are under-represented compared to students.

    3) The consultation is not “top-down.” No decision has been made. Furthermore, we have held 10 focus groups and stakeholder meetings so we are better prepared for the upcoming open houses. One of those stakeholder meetings was explicitly targeted at student leaders. In this consultation, student opinion will count.

    4) Blake says “[the consultation guide] reads more like pro-NCAA propaganda.”
    The development of the consultation guide has been done transparently with input from all committee members. I have three minor concerns with the guide which only came to me after the final edit deadline for the consultation guide so they weren’t addressed..
    i) The sports chosen on p.9 as “comparison” sports for the number of competitions that athletes get in CIS vs. NCAA Div. II are three particular examples that paint the NCAA Div II very favorably compared to the CIS. You wouldn’t find the same if you compared the number of games played in b-ball or v-ball.
    ii) The guide says that “the US offers the highest level of intercollegiate competition in North America.” True, but athletics is proposing to play Div II which isn’t the “highest level… in N. America.”
    iii) The guide says that “over the past six years UBC Vancouver has won just 7% of national championships in the 7 NAIA-sponsored sports” and says that UBC has one 41% of national championships in CIS. Swimming has won 11 of the last 12 national championships (men and women) over the past 6 years which skews those numbers.
    Outside of the 3 relatively minor points I raised I challenge Blake to offer some specific examples of “pro-NCAA propaganda” in the consultation guide.

    I will post my thoughts on the issue in the near future (ie: on the weekend when I don’t have so much homework to do!). Rest assured, I haven’t made up my mind. I’ll make some points for and against joining. There are pros and cons for joining the NCAA Div II as well as staying in the CIS. I’m hoping that the results from the consultation will bring some clarity to the issue and help me make up my mind.

    Please remember to visit the NCAA Div II website at http://www.students.ubc.ca/ncaa. Check out the minutes from the six committee meetings (www.students.ubc.ca/ncaa/minutes.cfm) and check out the consultation guide (www.students.ubc.ca/ncaa/download/UBC_NCAA_consultationguide.pdf).

    Most importantly go to http://www.students.ubc.ca/ncaa/feedback.cfm?page=online and fill out a feedback form. Rading about or sounding off about the issue on UBC Insiders is great… but make sure you remember to go through the official channels of the consultation too.

    Happy thinking and studying!
    ~ Philip Edgcumbe

  13. MrCanadianMrCanuck on September 25, 2008 6:40 pm

    Great post Philip!

    Didn’t mean for a “personal attack,” my apologies in case you felt that way Mr Hydrant just “guessing” like everyone else on here seems to do when they throw numbers and facts around. Sites like this are great to share opinions, but let’s start quoting some facts when throwing numbers around, otherwise make it clear it is just personal opinion or a “guess.” I think there are a lot of questions and facts that need to come out before we can really make an educated final decision on this topic. We are all guilty of it and it is obvious from the start who is for and against UBC going NCAA a little bit prematurely on all our parts.

    I encourage everyone to go to the information sessions on this topic and truly hear both sides of the topic before making a final decision, it is a very interesting topic.

    In general and just outlining my own personal thoughts I am in favour of UBC going the NCAA route as I think it will benefit and help create a closer UBC community and identity, promote an active lifestyle, improve the sporting venues for UBC and the Vancouver community, provide a greater number of scholarships to a wider range of students and actually help create a Canadian sports identity, by keeping Canadian kids in Canada.

    The money that a successful NCAA application can generate may be used to support a wide variety of student projects and is not necessarily locked to an athletic scope. This would be interesting to see some projections on this and where all of the money would actually go.

    It is important to remember that not all current athletic programs at UBC are big money makers such as golf (over a million dollar endowment) but what is the financial state of for example women’s rugby? This NCAA application will ensure that men’s and women’s sports are funded equally and the same number of athletic scholarships are offered to women as they are men.

    I think one of the main benefits of UBC attempting to go NCAA is that it is another step to show that UBC is a well rounded institution. The academic side of things are covered relatively very well at UBC, but if UBC wants to be a leading institution for the future it has to develop in all fields. I mean it’s great to have a PhD and be the smartest person in the world, but if you don’t know how to bend down and tie your own shoe laces in the morning it’s hard to get your day going. If UBC wants to be the best it has to be the best in all areas. UBC needs to think ahead for the future. We are all spending money on a new SUB, many new projects that we will not necessarily enjoy when we are here, but future generations of students will benefit. Everyone wants everything now, but no one wants to pay for it now, so depending on the statistics that the university and the NCAA produce on this subject if it can at all give UBC an edge for the future I am willing to contribute whatever I can to help.

    Look forward to chatting more on this subject, have a great day everyone!

  14. Fire Hydrant on September 28, 2008 8:48 am

    Hmm… I guess it looks like I need to be more specific. Hooray!

    On the crossing-the-border point, which would not be a change for NAIA sports: In 2007, UBC had 44714 students, of whom 5911 were international students. 1233 were from the US, and would likely have no trouble entering the US. However, 1095 were from mainland China (plus 180 Hong Kong, 117 Taiwan), 180 were from Iran, 12 North Korea, and 40 Pakistan. I see no reason why students from these and similar countries would have as easy a time entering the US as would Canadians.

    As for the funding model for athletics facilities, here’s what I can come up with from memory (if you have evidence that this is incomplete, or if you know how a few of these were funded where I don’t, feel free to chime in with some more details):

    -Women’s gym (demolished, site now BUTO): AMS fee.
    -Old stadium (demolished, site now SUB): no idea
    -War Memorial Gym: AMS fee.
    -Empire Pool: built for British Empire Games, I don’t know from what pot of money.
    -Aquatic Centre: AMS fee.
    -Thunderbird Stadium: no idea
    -Osborne Gym: Academic facility (HKIN), not Athletics. Provincial government?
    -SRC Gym: Fee approved by AMS referendum, revoked by subsequent AMS referendum, reinstated by UBC.
    -Thunderbird Arena (original): AMS fee
    -Thunderbird Arena renovation: VANOC $35.834M, UBC (future sponsorship?) $9M, RONA $1M, interest $1.3M, seating $700k.
    -I have no idea how the tennis bubble or playing fields were paid for, but the new non-grass fields, ball diamond and running track are funded $6.8M from UBC/Properties Trust (as amenities for non-institutional residents), $3.04M from Athletics’ capital reserve (athletics fee), and $1.05M from donations and future donations.

    I feel justified in saying that the bulk of the major athletics facilities were built from student fees agreed to by the students through referendum. I’ve been able to find evidence of less than $2M in corporate and private donations ever to athletics facilities, although VANOC and the Empire Games could be squeezed into that category in a pinch. I’m not aware of any athletics facility named after a donor (I don’t count MacInnes Field as an Athletics facility).

    Now, for some opinion:

    I’m personally not convinced there’s any benefit to joining NCAA Div II, but if the varsity side wants it, maybe we can try it. However, I’d insist on a lot of conditions, particularly around transparency, academic rigour, and what hoops would need to be jumped through to get to Div I. For transparency and several other reasons, it makes sense to me that varsity athletics’ budget would be firewalled from the Rec and facilities sides, as a separate ancillary, and that there’d be more oversight.

    Varsity sports benefits the several hundred varsity athletes and the hundreds of students who attend varsity games (possibly thousands in the case of the Shrum Bowl, I understand). The Rec and facilities sides benefit the other 44000 students as well. The priority here, in my opinion, should not be varsity.

  15. Alex Lougheed on September 29, 2008 8:09 am

    My experience with the process so far has been rather positive. The committee composition seems rather fair, and even Philip’s observation of there only being one faculty rep is an anomaly, since Peter Dauvergne started off on the committee as an arts faculty member (though he was an associate dean).

    I have spoken to some of the upper administration about the process and at this point we can do nothing but wait to see how the rest of this evolves. Regarding scope, I also have it on good authority that this is not limited to purely the question of joining NCAA Div II. The booklet has an additional comments fields for this reason. If you would like to comment on the department in any capacity, this is your time.

    I personally can’t accept furthering the varsity program until the recreation program is developed and supported to a point where it’s no longer laughable. The purpose of these programs, my understanding is, so the University can create a more ‘well-rounded’ education for its students. If that’s the principle here, wouldn’t it make far more sense to increase this well-roundedness to all students, instead of an elite few? I prefer the approach large research institutions similar to ours take, like MIT. We should flip the split on rec:varsity spending.

    Lastly, if you spent the time to read this, you should spend the time to fill this out: http://www.students.ubc.ca/ncaa/feedback.cfm?page=online

    Students did not have stellar turnout at the focus groups thus far, and the more views the better.

  16. Yonnnnnnnnaaaayyyyy!!!!! on October 4, 2008 7:14 am

    Like fire hydrant, I like to keep up on my reading, and will fill in the gaps on his post. This info comes from old course calendars.

    -Old stadium (demolished, site now SUB): student and faculty funding
    -Empire Pool: listed as “A gift from the British Empire and Commonwealth Games Canada(1954) Society”
    -Thunderbird Stadium: credit is given to the Board of Governors, so GPOF?
    -Osborne Gym: also credited to the Board of Governors, GPOF?
    -playing fields: appear to largely be from donors
    -tennis bubble: joint venture between Tennis Canada, HKin and Athletics

    As for naming, the playing fields are technically named after people who were donors, but some of the names are lost. As well, the new rowing complex is the John M. S. Lecky boathouse.

    Now that the nerdy stuff is out of the way, I am very concerned that the reasons given for supporting the NCAA in these comments rely on HUGE assumptions. Most notably:
    1) that attendance and fan support will increase sustantially
    2) the the move may increase revenues for the university/athletics

    I haven’t been presented with any compelling evidence that either of those will happen to any degree if we made the move to NCAA. It’s nice that American schools can make that happen; we’re not one of them. I’d like to be convinced based on the way athletics works here, at UBC.

  17. Glen on October 7, 2008 7:41 am

    I can’t speak about div II teams, but I’m fairly confident in saying that most NCAA div I athletics operate at a loss. Only a select few like Ohio State and Michigan are able to take the profits from football and basketball and use that to run the less popular sports. Those schools average over 100,000 people per football game.

Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind

Spam prevention powered by Akismet