Simon Fraser University Joins NCAA

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like Simon Fraser University's application to join the American NCAA Division II has been approved. What does this mean to the future of intercollegiate athletics in Canada?

Simon Fraser University became the first institution outside the United States to enter the NCAA membership process after the Division II Membership Committee accepted the institution’s application during a July 7-9 meeting in Indianapolis.

Simon Fraser, located in Burnaby, British Columbia, will begin a two-year candidacy period September 1. Prospective members also must complete at least one year of provisional status before being accepted as full-time Division II members, meaning the Canadian institution could become an active Division II member by fall 2012.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/nca...10_09_ncaa_news

[lily]

Aw crap. BC high schools play American rules football. I was hoping this would change with SFU being inthe CIAU. So much for that.

[jdobbin]

Aw crap. BC high schools play American rules football. I was hoping this would change with SFU being inthe CIAU. So much for that.

It is the travel costs that are killing national play in all sports. It is also hard to stay competitive since there are fewer teams to play against and you have to travel so far to play against them. NCAA II has 250 colleges. Simon Fraser is good enough in some sports to make it to NCAA I.

There are six universities presently seeking NCAA membership. I expect all of the universities will apply at some point and some of the Canadian teams will be very competitive.

I expect this will make for better scholarships, better quality of players, better coverage of university sports and the like. It is sad that it will end some inter-Canada play but it isn't like the present system is bringing in the crowds.

And while the universities may play American rule football, there are enough levels at the amateur playing CFL rules as well as a pro league.

Edited July 19, 2009 by jdobbin

[lily]

And while the universities may play American rule football, there are enough levels at the amateur playing CFL rules as well as a pro league.

As it stands now, community leagues play Canadian rules, as does UBC (and SFU for the moment). High schools play American rules... only in BC, so far as I know. The rest of the country they play Canadian.

[August1991]

I could go to wikipedia but I'm lazy.

What is NCAA? National Council of ... Athletics? This must be a sports thing.

[bush_cheney2004]

My basic knowledge of NCAA eligibility rules may put Canadian schools at a disadvantage. For example, men's hockey players may not be eligible because of juniors programs. There are also fewer athletic scholarships offered and less alumni financial support compared to American schools. In sports like women's softball, some Canadians just choose to max out NCAA eligibility and greater opportunity in the US, only to return for Canadian national teams in world competitions.

[bush_cheney2004]

I could go to wikipedia but I'm lazy.

What is NCAA? National Council of ... Athletics? This must be a sports thing.

The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) is the largest governing body for intercollegiate athletics in the USA.

Yes...it is very much a sports thing for student athletes, 98% of whom will never turn pro.

[August1991]

Yes...it is very much a sports thing for student athletes, 98% of whom will never turn pro.

Basketball or football? [since this is American, I'll assume it's not hockey. And since it's a student thing, it's not baseball, golf or tennis. Never heard of Western State vs. Eastern South Dakota in a baseball match.]

----

Secondary question: why do American schools make such a big deal of basketball and football matches? Baseball is American and a team sport. Golf and tennis are individual sports - so is weightlifting. America is supposed to be about individualism, no?

So, why is college basketball and football such a big thing - or do I have this all wrong?

Edited July 19, 2009 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

Basketball or football? [since this is American, it's not hockey. And since it's a student thing, it's not baseball, golf or tennis. Never heard of Western State vs. Eastern South Dakota in a baseball match.]

Not sure what you mean....it is all of those things....even competitive pistol shooting. If you mean SFU specifically, then there is no NCAA Division II hockey, just Division I & III. SFU was already a member of the NAIA in America and CIS in Canada. What is driving the change apears to be SFU's rivals also joining the NCAA from the NAIA.

Secondary question: why do American schools make such a big deal of basketball and football matches? Baseball is American and a team sport. Golf and tennis are individual sports - so is weightlifting. America is supposed to be about individualism, no?

That's as easy question to answer.....those two sports programs generate enough revenue to pay for themselves and most of the other non revenue generating programs.

So, why is college basketball and football such a big thing - or do I have this wrong?

No...you are very much correct. NCAA broadcast rights sell for BILLIONS of dollars.

[August1991]

Obvious first question:

That's as easy question to answer.....those two sports programs generate enough revenue to pay for themselves and most of the other non revenue generating programs.

Why?

Again:

No...you are very much correct. NCAA broadcast rights sell for BILLIONS of dollars.

So, why is NCAA basketball and football so lucrative?

Why is NCAA baseball, golf, synchronized diving, boxing, weightlifting - (do they exist?) - less lucrative?

Once again, do I have this all wrong?

Edited July 19, 2009 by August1991

[lily]

Obvious first question:Why?

Again:So, why is NCAA basketball and football so lucrative?

Why is NCAA baseball, golf, synchronized diving, boxing, weightlifting - (do they exist?) - less lucrative?

Once again, do I have this all wrong?

Because they're sports people like to watch and they're willing to pay for the privilege.

Team sports are huge in the US, same as elsewhere.

Stating that "the US is all about individualism" smacks of trolling.

[jdobbin]

Obvious first question:Why?

Again:So, why is NCAA basketball and football so lucrative?

Because teams last forever. When people attend Toronto or Montreal hockey games, they are not just there to see individuals. There is history behind every team: players, coaches even ownership are part of it. And the one thing that is most important: location.

Teams have home facilities to play in and they become as storied as the athletes who play in them.

A university can have a great boxer. They may in fact have a great boxing team but it comes down to the individual. And that individual is not necessarily dependent on team or location.

It is probably the main reason that the big team sports are so loved. They are connected to place and history.

[August1991]

Because they're sports people like to watch and they're willing to pay for the privilege.

Team sports are huge in the US, same as elsewhere.

Stating that "the US is all about individualism" smacks of trolling.

But Americans love Rocky - and they also love baseball. Neither boxing and baseball are college sports. But basketball and football are US college sports.

Why?

Because teams last forever.

....

So why is the golfer Tiger Williams (?) famous and why do I see his photo (not football team logos) in airport lounges with expensive watches?

I don't get this.

Edited July 19, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

So why is the golfer Tiger Williams (?) famous and why do I see his photo (not football team logos) in airport lounges with expensive watches?

I don't get this.

I think you mean Tiger Woods.

He is an individual icon.

Teams are about place, history and a group of people playing together. Walk around any airport and you will see people wearing their team colours.

Edited July 19, 2009 by jdobbin

[August1991]

I think you mean Tiger Woods.

Thanks, Dobbin. That's who I meant.

In all honesty, I don't pay much attention to sports or celebrity except for magazine photos at the grocery cash - and I'm still curious to understand what NCAA really means.

[bush_cheney2004]

But Americans love Rocky - and they also love baseball. Neither boxing and baseball are college sports. But basketball and football are US college sports.

Why?

Baseball is most certainly a college sport. Boxing is relegated to clubs and Golden Gloves series (for amateurs).

The big money is driven by TV and cable network contracts. Many years ago, there was a tug-o-war between true amateur athletics and big money....big money won.

So why is the golfer Tiger Williams (?) famous and why do I see his photo (not football team logos) in airport lounges with expensive watches?

I don't get this.

Other sports and high profile players certainly get their share of endorsement money (e.g. Michael Jordan, Williams sisters, Manning brothers, etc.)

[jdobbin]

In all honesty, I don't pay much attention to sports or celebrity except for magazine photos at the grocery cash - and I'm still curious to understand what NCAA really means.

It is just a very large program of college and university athletics.

Canada only has 83 universities so the travel time to play each other is long and expensive. The attractiveness of NCAA is that most Canadian cities are close to the border and there are 250 colleges and universities in NCAA II alone to play against.

It means money saved, money earned. There is no real national TV deal for Canadian university athletics.

[Wilber]

Competing against US colleges is not new in the history of SFU. It started out in the NAIA before it became part of the CAIU.