|
|
Post by feens on Oct 2, 2009 14:17:38 GMT -5
All in all, I agree...if someone is paying for school and attending full-time and meeting all other academic regulations, why does it really matter if they compete or not? A good portion of the CIS meets are open for all athletes anyway. Should the opposite not also be true? If you're not taking a full course load (especially in your undergrad!!!) you are clearly at an advantage and should not be allowed to compete.... That's what I'm saying: in order to be eligible, the athlete should be a full-time student and meet academic requirements. As mentioned, the academic requirements will cover this normally anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 2, 2009 16:04:26 GMT -5
Apparently at one time in Canada there was no limit to time eligibility. I remember reading a Globe article that talked about it. There was mention of a Uof T hockey player that played on most of the teams that had won nationals.(They were a powerhouse under Tom Watt) The player was a med student that did all his schooling at U of T.The team won something like 9 national championships over a 10 year period. This was in the late 60's to early 70's I believe. Canada had a 4 year rule for a period of time until the late 70's. I remember a number of people coming back to complete degrees or for grad school when the 5 year rule came in. Interesting. How many universities were there in Canada (or competing in the CIAU or whatever it was at that time) in the 60s? What was the rationale for bringing it in? Just copy NCAA? Remember, I'm talking about deregulating and letting each sport decide. I don't really care what hockey does. At any rate, I think that if you are lucky enough to get Matt McInnes at your med school, and he's willing to run, then fine. CIS cross country is a community of student athletes, so those who are part of that community should be able to compete. I thought of a couple other possible limits that might increase fairness and avoid poaching/multiple victory laps. 1. Athletes in their 6th or greater year of eligibility would not be eligible for AFAs 2. Athletes in their 6th or greater year of eligibility must be 28 years old or younger as of September 1st of the year of competition (or make it fall in line with FISU's age restriction--damn, I just made myself ineligible, haha.) 3. Athletes in their 6th or greater year of elibigility must be registered in 12 credits in the fall term (3 more than current rule) or be full time according to their graduate program, but would still only need to complete 18 credits for the full academic year to become eligible again the next year (same as current rule). This would put extra emphasis on the academics for those in later years. Not sure I am totally on board for this one, but I was just thinking about it on my run today and this is what I came up with. |
|
|
|
Post by lambert on Oct 6, 2009 15:28:54 GMT -5
Sporting Canada has the current team rankings for men and women. Calgary men may not be getting credit from Kitz and J-Barr, but apparently the Canadian coaches have respect for Doug Lamont's squad, ranking them third. It's no surprise that Guelph is ranked first for both men and women. sportingcanada.com/xc/Men's Rankings06-Oct-2009 Top 10 Points 1 Guelph 100.0 2 Windsor 80.0 3 Calgary 57.8 4 Victoria 50.0 5 St. Francis Xavier 47.8 6 Western Ontario 44.4 7 Regina 42.2 8 Queen's 27.8 9 Toronto 24.4 10 Alberta 23.3 Women's Rankings06-Oct-2009 Top 10 Points 1 Guelph 100.0 2 McMaster 67.8 3 Calgary 61.1 4 Toronto 57.8 5 St. Francis Xavier 52.2 6 Western Ontario 43.3 7 Victoria 38.9 8 Manitoba 27.8 8 Laval 27.8 10 Windsor 22.2 |
|
|
|
Post by ebenjamin on Oct 7, 2009 14:54:54 GMT -5
Any idea how points are distributed in those sportingcanada rankings? Are those percentages, or how do those numbers work?
|
|
|
|
Post by runnerdude on Oct 8, 2009 11:33:12 GMT -5
Any idea how points are distributed in those sportingcanada rankings? Are those percentages, or how do those numbers work? I would assume it is an index, considering the top teams are both 100, and the others are based off that. ie. a team at 50 would be half as good as a team at 100. I think. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 8, 2009 21:24:58 GMT -5
When the coaches vote, there are points: 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. Those numbers are points indexed to 100. Guelph gets 100 because they've got 100% of the top votes. I'm not sure how they would look if Guelph was not a unanimous choice though.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstorlast on Oct 13, 2009 19:22:02 GMT -5
Latest rankings are up:
Men:
1 Guelph 99.1
2 Windsor 87.3
3 St. Francis Xavier 73.6
4 Calgary 59.1
5 Victoria 54.5
6 Western Ontario 33.6
7 Toronto 30.9
8 Regina 29.1
9 Queen's 20.9
10 McMaster 19.1
Women:
1 Guelph 101.8
2 McMaster 79.1
3 Calgary 64.5
4 Toronto 61.8
5 St. Francis Xavier 49.1
6 Victoria 44.5
7 Western Ontario 32.7
8 Laval 24.5
9 Manitoba 21.8
10 Queen's 20.0
Guelph is so awesome they have passed the 100% mark?
|
|
