Subventions au football

[Seniorgolfer]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this issue.

The concept of a "buy out" is interesting, but sad that some schools will only accept changes that benefit themselves with little or no regard to the needs of the development of a sport.

I did develop a full Canadian interlocking schedule proposal back in December of 2014. I was not aware the the Mullins proposal was also being shared around. The way the Mullins proposal was presented galvanized the opposition to anything coming from the outside. Sad !

In each conference, all the teams (except previous year's OUA last place team) played one away game and one home game against teams of similar standings in the previous year. It worked out pretty easy alternating conferences from year to year (AUS never played CW, only RSEQ and OUA). It was fairly simple then with 6 teams in the RSEQ and 4 in AUS. Not, it would be a puzzle.

Your comment does show that there are some avenues of solution to improvements in the present schedule of USports football teams. It seems though that there isn't anyone who wants to carry the ball and run with this challenge.

[Seniorgolfer]

Oups !
Not, it would be a puzzle.

Should be NOW it would be .....

[Peter Gryphon]

Your plan, like the N8 proposal, sounds comprehensive. I used to favour that but now I realise it is too big a bite for U Sports to chew. Even the RSEQ & CW have a couple programs who may favour interlock during conversations but will throw up a road block when it is time to move ahead.

The "buy out" plan is incremental. It has something tangible for those weak-kneed programs. It could create a limited but dynamic free market for the selling of undesirable conference games. It doesn't directly lead to tiering. The conferences retain the sovereignty and their playoff structures. Interlock does make it easier to compare and rank the conferences which might allow for some changes to playoff format.

BTW feel free to respond en francais. Je lis mieux que j'écris.

[Sylven]

Seniorgolfer wrote

The concept of a "buy out" is interesting, but sad that some schools will only accept changes that benefit themselves with little or no regard to the needs of the development of a sport.

I did develop a full Canadian interlocking schedule proposal back in December of 2014. I was not aware the the Mullins proposal was also being shared around. The way the Mullins proposal was presented galvanized the opposition to anything coming from the outside. Sad !

Your comment does show that there are some avenues of solution to improvements in the present schedule of USports football teams. It seems though that there isn't anyone who wants to carry the ball and run with this challenge.

Triste oui mais tellement prévisible dans les deux cas...

Effectivement, si un effort concerté ne semble pratiquement plus possible pour sortir du carcan actuel, peut-être que Peter a raison et que l'initiative va devoir effectivement venir des équipes individuelles. Mais même là, est-ce que les conférences vont permettre de telles initiatives non concertées d'équipes qui s'organisent des matchs interconférence par elles-mêmes sans la supervision et la bénédiction de U Sports ? J'en doute.

[Seniorgolfer]

The "buy out" plan is incremental. It has something tangible for those weak-kneed programs. It could create a limited but dynamic free market for the selling of undesirable conference games. It doesn't directly lead to tiering. The conferences retain the sovereignty and their playoff structures. Interlock does make it easier to compare and rank the conferences which might allow for some changes to playoff format. 

I'm fairly ignorant of what goes on in the States, but is this concept (buy-out) used by any conference in the NCAA or NAIA ? Of course, in Division 1, they have the great equalizer of TV revenues. USports is not QUITE there yet !!!!

[Seniorgolfer]

Mais même là, est-ce que les conférences vont permettre de telles initiatives non concertées d'équipes qui s'organisent des matchs interconférence par elles-mêmes sans la supervision et la bénédiction de U Sports ? J'en doute.

1) USports n'a pas d'autorité sur les calendriers de chaque conférence.
2) Tant et aussi longtemps que la structure actuelle des éliminatoires menant à la Coupe Vanier ne changera pas, USports n'a aucun intérêt à intervenir. Au contraire, si on peut avoir plus de bons matchs à mettre à la TV.
3) Ce seraient les équipes elles-mêmes, qui décident de jouer des matchs comptant au classement, contre d'autres en dehors de leur propre ligue qui prendraient le plus gros risque en diminuant leur chance dans le classement de ligue si les résultats de ces matchs comptent.

C'est une idée très intéressante qui mérite qu'on la considère sérieusement. C'est ce genre de "creative thinking" qui manque actuellement partout dans le milieu du fb universitaire canadien. Pour plusieurs universités, la tradition pèse lourd et/ou on est trop occupé à diriger son programme pour investir dans le développement du sport.

[Sylven]

Seniorgolfer wrote

1) USports n'a pas d'autorité sur les calendriers de chaque conférence.
2) Tant et aussi longtemps que la structure actuelle des éliminatoires menant à la Coupe Vanier ne changera pas, USports n'a aucun intérêt à intervenir. Au contraire, si on peut avoir plus de bons matchs à mettre à la TV.
3) Ce seraient les équipes elles-mêmes, qui décident de jouer des matchs comptant au classement, contre d'autres en dehors de leur propre ligue qui prendraient le plus gros risque en diminuant leur chance dans le classement de ligue si les résultats de ces matchs comptent.

Dans ce cas, est-ce que les conférences le permettraient ?

[Seniorgolfer]

Dans ce cas, est-ce que les conférences le permettraient ?

Pour au moins deux conférences actuelles, c'est presqu'une question de survie. Donc ...

[Peter Gryphon]

Sylven wrote

Dans ce cas, est-ce que les conférences le permettraient ?

You only need two conferences to allow it in order to get started. No other conference can veto it.

I think the OUA might go for it. Fewer blowouts. Cash for HAVE NOT teams. It would satisfy some of the teams demanding change. It offers the possibility of renewed rivalries with McGill for Queen's and UofT. It doesn't affect the playoffs or Yates Cup.

U Sports might actually want to champion it because it adds to their TV properties. These games need to be negotiated a year in advance - i.e. signed and sealed before the conferences make their schedules. That allows for plenty of time to plan and market the best of these games.

Talking about marketing ... maybe use one as a national Kick-off Classic like the NCAA does. Put it on a Thursday or Friday night. Or Labour Day before the CFL games. Or let Guelph, Western or Laurier host one of these as their Homecoming Game with the guaranteed sold out crowd and atmosphere that TV people want.