This article is factually incorrect and deliberately misleading. The author states as the crux of his argument that money is spread equally amongst teams rather than focusing on a few high performing teams: “What little funding does exist at U of T is spread equally amongst all 44 teams.” In fact, funding for the men’s hockey team of which Deagle is a part totals approximately $215, 000/year while men’s and women’s rugby each receive $15, 000/year.
The numbers don’t lie, and Deagle’s argument crumbles when you look at them.
The real problem with varsity sports at U of T is the inability to recruit high-performing athletes due to high academic standards and the rigorous reputation that a U of T education carries. Deagle should be intimately aware of this given that last season he played 16 games with only one point all season.
— Curtis Woodford (from the web)
As always, there are two sides to every story. While it would be great to see the Blues achieve the same level of success we had in the past, one can only wonder if the potential for future success is really worth it at the expense of the majority of the current varsity teams?
Many of the teams who face restructuring are actually quite successful at the OUA level (ie. baseball, m&w water polo, m&w badminton, women’s golf, m&w tennis, women’s squash, just to name a few). Their only crime is not being part of the CIS. For this, they face demotion to the recreational level, regardless of the fact that many teams actually do participate in national championships (ie. lacrosse is part of CUFLA, mountain biking has the University Cup, and sports like badminton, squash, and rowing all have their own respective Canadian University Championships). Rugby is a special exception to this rule because they are a CIS sport, but due to specific circumstances they do not have fields/facilities and therefore are also being demoted.
My main concern is that we are risking the success of 28 sports in order to attempt success at 16. I just can’t see how redirecting and funneling all funding, attention, and resources into a handful of sports will really help them be more successful. The biggest issue we face is an internal one. The University of Toronto is one of the only schools in Canada that does not centrally fund its athletics program. As it stands, intercollegiate, intramural, and open recreation athletics are fully funded by a portion of student fees, fundraising efforts, and alumni support (in some cases). This should not be the case. More importantly, however, is U of T’s reputation as a prestigious, but demanding, academic institution. In most cases, the top athletes just don’t have the marks to get in, or they simply avoid attempting admission because of the high expectations and rigorous courses. This is not going to change as I can’t foresee the university making admission exceptions for incoming varsity athletes. And this is something that money can’t fix.
As stated above, varsity athletes should indeed all work together and want to see each other succeed. It shouldn’t be a case of mainstream sports vs. non-mainstream sports. U of T and the Varsity Blues pride themselves in their history, that which boasts a wide array of varsity sports. Let’s not see that change.
— ProudBlue (from the web)
You certainly are not coming from an objective or balanced perspective. Your statement regarding rugby seems to contradict itself. Indeed rugby does have a short season and draws on relatively few resources. Our entire budget is probably less than the budget your team has for just a few games. I’m not sure that eliminating our sport would help others as significantly as you suggest.
In addition, our short season does not preclude us from being a high performance sport. The university season is but one part of a 12-month intensive training schedule that rugby athletes participate in. We don’t simply show up in September, play for 13 weeks, and sit on the couch. We play at the club, provincial, national and even international levels. In fact, rugby 7s will be in the Olympics in 2016. Currently over 95 per cent of the National Senior Women’s Team, which consistently ranks fourth worldwide, is composed of current or former CIS athletes. Can men’s hockey boast an Olympic team that draws so significantly from the CIS talent pool? I think not.
— Rugby Girl (from the web)
The logic behind Kevin’s article is fairly simple actually. When you sacrifice in one area you expect gains in another. This is true in academics, athletics, and life and I would challenge anyone who argues otherwise. If U of T’s goal is to achieve success in the higher profile sports such as basketball, football and hockey, all of which have television contracts (TSN, The Score, Sportsnet) then it appears as though the “High Performance Model” would be a good fit.
If research is what you’re looking for here it is. After looking at CIS champions over the past 12 years in the proposed “High Performance Sports” that U of T would continue to support, (excluding men’s cross-country and women’s track due to insufficient data) I found that out of a possible 168 championships, a University supporting over 25 varsity teams won only 15 CIS titles over that period of time. Western, who won a men’s hockey title in the early 2000’s was the next highest supporter of varsity teams with 32, 14 less than U of T currently supports. The numbers don’t lie. If we want to win at high profile sports this model has proven to be effective.
I understand the frustration from those facing the removal of your sports, but that is no excuse for personal attacks on Kevin. No matter the decision. Go Blues.
— Brett Willows
U of T should continue to move toward Meatless Mondays
No thanks. You can eat vegetarian food for whatever reasons you so choose, and I’ll respect your decision. But it’s not up to U of T to mandate my own food choices. Their job is to provide options, so you and I can both choose what we want to consume.
— Kellen (from web)
Awesome article! I agree 100 per cent. Turns out that U of T is going to go ahead with something like this — “Veggie Day” (or something — not “meatless” though) Details being worked out now. I am interested to see how it turns out. Chef Jaco and Aramark are working on it. Anyway, glad that animal rights made it into the article. Very important.
— T York (from web)
Quebec-driven reforms voted down at CFS national meeting
To be quite clear those who often criticize the CFS should be giving the CFS a pat on the back.
Right now the CFS is having it’s own battle with its radical left wing GSU, DSU, and a few others were pushing a radical agenda that the majority did not support. The motions were defeated.
This is because CFS as a whole is not ready to shift even further left.
Not all the motions failed. Some passed and some were referred. The meeting did have issues but they were caused by individual delegates not by CFS as a whole.
— Mike Michaud (from web)
