View Single Post
Old
05-16-2013, 06:01 PM
  #115
FreddtFoyle
Registered User
 
FreddtFoyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,392
vCash: 500
Your bias? The holier-than-thou attitude about "top academic schools" and how everyone else pays their players.

Quote:
One important note: the top academic schools (e.g., Toronto, Queen's, RMC) don't pay their players, and have very limited athletic scholarship money, if any. They actually attract players based on the academic merits of the school.
Those schools made a choice not to spend money on athletic scholarships. They can/could afford to (heaven knows they've got more financial resources than schools in the Maritimes dealing with declining demographic-based enrollment issues), but they don't. Because they made that choice, it doesn't make other schools "lesser" because they chose to invest in varsity athletics.

If those same "elite" schools are challenged to get student-athletes in because of their selective admission standards, well, they made that choice too. If other schools have more open standards because they see the function of a provincial university being accessibility to all, and that in turn means it is easier for student-athletes to get into those schools, well so be it. The "non-elite" school hockey programs are going to do their own thing and focus on winning national championships.

And by the way, of course I know RMC is a unique case as a military college and I never brought them into the conversation. Queen's on the other hand? If they want to be a selective-entry university and not spend money on their hockey program, well then they should expect to be noncompetitive.

FreddtFoyle is offline   Reply With Quote