PDA

View Full Version : Canadian College into NCAA Div 2



Pages : [1] 2 3

uwbadgers14
07-10-2009, 01:28 PM
http://www.tsn.ca/ncaa/story/?id=284321

Could this be the start of canadian colleges growing there programs and trying to get into Div 1 hockey???

Can college hockey grow enough to start picking people that normally would go play Major Jr.?

moose97
07-10-2009, 01:41 PM
Okay, let's go through the time-line:

'11-'12 - finish two year provisional D-II membership

As there is currently a moritorium on "playing-up" in any sport, let's say that that get's repealed when it expires in 2011. Simon Frasier still wouldn't be able to apply to play-up in hockey until '11-'12 (this, not to mention that SFU does not have a varsity hockey program at the moment - just a non-university sponsored club team), and even at that, the Clan (great nickname, BTW) would have another period of D-I provisional membership for the hockey team. Bottem line? SFU hockey (let alone Univ. Brittish Columbia, or any other Canadian University) is at least five to ten years off (if not more - much more).

Moose

Puck Swami
07-10-2009, 01:51 PM
Great for SFU.

Would love to see more Canadian schools playing in the NCAA, and hopefully, someday in D-I. With Title IX and high start-up costs conspiring to restrict the growth of college hockey stateside, the upside of adding more hockey savvy, established programs to our sport is a compelling alternative to the no-growth, (and some might say decline) of the college game.

uwbadgers14
07-10-2009, 02:14 PM
Okay, let's go through the time-line:

'11-'12 - finish two year provisional D-II membership

As there is currently a moritorium on "playing-up" in any sport, let's say that that get's repealed when it expires in 2011. Simon Frasier still wouldn't be able to apply to play-up in hockey until '11-'12 (this, not to mention that SFU does not have a varsity hockey program at the moment - just a non-university sponsored club team), and even at that, the Clan (great nickname, BTW) would have another period of D-I provisional membership for the hockey team. Bottem line? SFU hockey (let alone Univ. Brittish Columbia, or any other Canadian University) is at least five to ten years off (if not more - much more).

Moose

Well it doesn't matter how long it would take, you would have to start at some point, when school starts up a program they do it for the future, they don't expect a national championship there first year. For the sport to grow someone has to get the ball rolling. If every team who wanted to start a new program (of any kind) thought about how long it would take for that program to get where they wanted it to be, then nothing would ever change.

Not to mention if college hockey was going to make a significant expantion, canada would have to get involved for it to work BECAUSE, if only US schools got involved you would end up with more average to below average teams because you wouldn't be getting more canadian talent. IF canada got involved you would be dipping into a new talent pool. Years down the line you would have kids growing up wanting to play for there university (like in the states) rather then wanting to play major junior.

The idea of more canadian university's and US university's having hockey is good for the game. I understand, a lot of traditional college hockey fans don't want to see a bunch of new teams in the mix. They are content with college hockey being a tier 2 sport. But those of us who feel that although college hockey will likely never reach NCAABB or NCAA football status. I would like to see the sport grow and reach more people because even if you are a casual hockey fan, the atmosphere at a packed college hockey arena is something any college sports fan will appreciate.

Bottom line and I have stated this before, i have taken the most casual hockey fans, even friends from SC who have never seen a hockey game on TV much less live, i have taken them to a Wisconsin hockey game, now they are fans for life, they watch the games online, Travel here once a year for the Minny series. So I dont' want to hear anyone tell me there is not room for growth in college hockey because I have seen it happen...

moose97
07-10-2009, 02:38 PM
Well it doesn't matter how long it would take...

Well, I don't think I ever said that it mattered how long it would take. I never said it shouldn't be encouraged (or dismissed) because it was a minium of 5-10 (or more) years away. I listed the timeline just to be sure no one was saying that SFU would have a D-I hockey team next eyar (or the year after). And to make sure that folks understand that Candian D-I college hockey is more on a 10-20 year plan than a 3-5 year track.

Moose

MikeAnderson
07-10-2009, 06:25 PM
From what I've heard, the current thinking is that the following conditions will be placed on potential Division I classifiers once the moratorium is lifted:

1) A $1 million application fee (refundable, minus costs, if not accepted).

2) Conference affiliation will be mandatory (so count on another $1-2 million in application fees there).

3) All sports must have scholarships funded to a minimum of 75% of possible equivilancies. To put this in perspective, at 100% of Division II levels you're not even at 50% of Division I.

4) The school must sponsor a minimum of 14 sports, including seven women's sports (this has not changed from previous requirements).

It's still being bandied about in committees, so nothing is in stone yet, but ANYONE moving to Division I is going to find the going extremely difficult. New D1 programs will have to be serious about things.

Patman
07-10-2009, 07:13 PM
From what I've heard, the current thinking is that the following conditions will be placed on potential Division I classifiers once the moratorium is lifted:

1) A $1 million application fee (refundable, minus costs, if not accepted).

2) Conference affiliation will be mandatory (so count on another $1-2 million in application fees there).

3) All sports must have scholarships funded to a minimum of 75% of possible equivilancies. To put this in perspective, at 100% of Division II levels you're not even at 50% of Division I.

4) The school must sponsor a minimum of 14 sports, including seven women's sports (this has not changed from previous requirements).

It's still being bandied about in committees, so nothing is in stone yet, but ANYONE moving to Division I is going to find the going extremely difficult. New D1 programs will have to be serious about things.

There's going to have to be some major qualifiers to that considering the Ivy League... and i have to wonder how they're going to treat single sport programs... especially with hockey.

I can understand that the number of D1 schools is getting to be a bit much but I can already look at this and say that one of UConn hockey or UConn baseball would be dropped under such an initiative. UConn's not exactly a small time school.

MikeAnderson
07-10-2009, 07:27 PM
There's going to have to be some major qualifiers to that considering the Ivy League... and i have to wonder how they're going to treat single sport programs... especially with hockey.

I can understand that the number of D1 schools is getting to be a bit much but I can already look at this and say that one of UConn hockey or UConn baseball would be dropped under such an initiative. UConn's not exactly a small time school.

I should clarify that these standards are for new programs, not existing. The point is that the programs making the jump have to be serious about it.

Obviously there would be standing exceptions for the Ivy League and the service academies should these standards be passed on to existing programs as a condition of retaining their Division I status.

Patman
07-10-2009, 09:11 PM
I should clarify that these standards are for new programs, not existing. The point is that the programs making the jump have to be serious about it.

Obviously there would be standing exceptions for the Ivy League and the service academies should these standards be passed on to existing programs as a condition of retaining their Division I status.

I think too many schools are doing it to become 'basketball famous'... of course I'd like my school to make the jump but I care very little about basketball and i'd be curious about how we could fair in the other sports.

Bruce Ciskie
07-10-2009, 09:29 PM
Um, guys...

Simon Fraser doesn't offer hockey as a varsity sport. If we're going to test the "play-up" moratorium for a hockey program, it's going to have to be a different school.

I'm interested, though, to see if anyone follows SFU.

bigmrg74
07-10-2009, 09:56 PM
From what I've heard, the current thinking is that the following conditions will be placed on potential Division I classifiers once the moratorium is lifted:

1) A $1 million application fee (refundable, minus costs, if not accepted).

2) Conference affiliation will be mandatory (so count on another $1-2 million in application fees there).

3) All sports must have scholarships funded to a minimum of 75% of possible equivilancies. To put this in perspective, at 100% of Division II levels you're not even at 50% of Division I.

4) The school must sponsor a minimum of 14 sports, including seven women's sports (this has not changed from previous requirements).

It's still being bandied about in committees, so nothing is in stone yet, but ANYONE moving to Division I is going to find the going extremely difficult. New D1 programs will have to be serious about things.So, whats the word on them actually getting tough on schools that should have stayed D2 in the first place?? Like Savannah State and New Jersey Tech??

MikeAnderson
07-10-2009, 10:17 PM
So, whats the word on them actually getting tough on schools that should have stayed D2 in the first place?? Like Savannah State and New Jersey Tech??

Like I say, I have no idea what, if any, new standards will be placed on existing Division I programs. It wouldn't shock me to see something along the lines of the FBS attendance standards being put in place (focusing obviously on some other department-wide metrics).

bigmrg74
07-11-2009, 12:56 AM
Like I say, I have no idea what, if any, new standards will be placed on existing Division I programs. It wouldn't shock me to see something along the lines of the FBS attendance standards being put in place (focusing obviously on some other department-wide metrics).

Yeah, and they sure as hell should tighten up those restrictions as well. The way I've been hearing it, the football alumni group at Eastern Michigan has been buying extra seats for all of their games just so they can say that they average over 15,000 tickets sold, not fannies in the seats. Hell, GVSU probably beat them more times than not on getting actual people to the games most of the time, and truthfully, we only have seats for a little over 8,500. Eastern would be better off dropping down to D1-AA and stop trying to compete with the 800 pound gorilla just down the road in Ann Arbor.

busterman62
07-11-2009, 07:05 AM
the Clan (great nickname, BTW)

Anyone care to wager how long it will take for the NC$$ to rule this nickname as "hostile and abusive?"

bigmrg74
07-11-2009, 10:22 AM
Anyone care to wager how long it will take for the NC$$ to rule this nickname as "hostile and abusive?"

They haven't come down yet on the Fighting Scots of Edinboro University yet. The Clan just might pass the NCAA's stern mustard. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

frmbostn
07-11-2009, 06:59 PM
Maybe these schools can join the Big Ten Hockey Conference...:)

Just aint gonna happen...

Happy
07-12-2009, 03:56 PM
Great for SFU.

Would love to see more Canadian schools playing in the NCAA, and hopefully, someday in D-I. With Title IX and high start-up costs conspiring to restrict the growth of college hockey stateside, the upside of adding more hockey savvy, established programs to our sport is a compelling alternative to the no-growth, (and some might say decline) of the college game.

When I want to see a Canadian school play ncaa, I just watch Denver. and, I expect even more damage ahead from title 9, since the ratio of women to men in college is rapidly slewing towards the fairer gender, and title 9 is just anti-male quotas to begin with.

Squarebanks
07-12-2009, 04:22 PM
As an alumnus of a GNAC-affiliated university, this has been talked about for a while now, although the consensus rumor was the UBC (U. of British Columbia) would join Simon Fraser in applying for membership.

The GNAC recently lost Seattle U. to D-1, so having a school up the road in Vancouver makes sense geographically.

Personally, I'm looking forward to it. I say let 'em play.


Um, guys...

Simon Fraser doesn't offer hockey as a varsity sport. If we're going to test the "play-up" moratorium for a hockey program, it's going to have to be a different school.

I'm interested, though, to see if anyone follows SFU.

I'm pretty sure UBC has a varsity hockey team; if my memory is correct they've played UAF and UAA in exhibitions.

Puck Swami
07-12-2009, 05:47 PM
When I want to see a Canadian school play ncaa, I just watch Denver.


Denver has only eight Canadians this year, less than 1/3 of the roster.:cool:

joecct
07-12-2009, 07:31 PM
Anyone care to wager how long it will take for the NC$$ to rule this nickname as "hostile and abusive?"SFU won't have Title IX either, but being in Canada, they probably have a ton more equality regs to comply with.

If one of the Canadian schools takes the NCAA to court (or vice versa), where do they go?