"Whatever prestige comes with NCAA membership, it will also bring greater challenges as well.That echoes a general point about the CIS/NCAA debate: The national body has to give schools a reason to stay. Justify the love.
"But this is undoubtedly the point. Canadian university sports have never developed into serious spectator pastimes, as they are in the U.S. A smaller market means fewer resources and a lower level of competition. Canadian high school students must often decide whether to study at home or depart for more lucrative offers and stiffer competition south of the border. Keeping more of these young men and woman at home would be a good thing.
" ... this change means the CIS now faces serious competition for the loyalty of its members. If such a situation produces a more accommodating stance within the organization regarding scholarships, travel and other complaints from Western schools, so much the better. A little competition never hurt anyone."
Holding to the status quo does not work in Canadian sport. Simon Fraser's move to the NCAA might be more about SFU being SFU, unique for the sake of being unique, but it's hard to believe this happened in a vacuum when UBC is considering the same move and many top teams are now beating NCAA Division 1 teams in exhibition and non-conference games.
For the sake of clarity, this is called The CIS Blog but that does not necessarily connote fealty toward the national organization. I'm a Canadian who loves college sports and believes there should be more of a spotlight on young people excelling in them, whatever the umbrella organization. Traditional media should pay more attention if someone from their coverage area is starting for a NCAA D-1 basketball or football team, since that is a notable feat. That's my bias.
Again, this is an "emotional and logistical hornets' nest" (some random idiot, April 16, 2009). Please keep the dialogue going on Justin McElroy's post, which is down below.
Simon Fraser's boldness (Globe & Mail)