CIS Hockey Funding (over/under table)

[Drummer]

As thook suggested, here is a thread for those who want to complain, discuss or outline the funding models of CIS schools

It is quite possible that this thread becomes a rant fest, but here we go.

MiamiHockey suggested that some CIS Teams 'pay' players to play hockey (RMC should never be part of this discussion, they get paid for their duties as members of the Armed Forces, not because they are athletes).

I take issue with the word 'pay' which implies salary, taxes, etc. Instead I think a better word is " allowance". I don't believe any school knowingly uses funds from their budget (outside of the normal CIS AFAs) to support a player or group of players.

Also, the team/department/school can not control the actions of a third party from supporting a player or group of players (the local 'booster' club)

I support the idea of Merit Awards and Academic Awards to those players who have contributed to the community and/or excelled academically.

If a team/department/school chooses to focus on other sports financially at the expense of others (football over hockey) that's there choice and as such should not be used as argument against strong hockey programs. The idea that Toronto, Queen's and others have higher academic standards which impacts attracting athletes - well that's their choice too. I tend to believe most schools have the same entrance standards, but their hockey programs are known to be funded on the low side and have had limited success in the past 30 years, so players go somewhere else.

I know of and have seen players receive assistance from boosters (free rent, which can be $300/month = $3000) as well as meals and other items of support, but the team/department/school has nothing to do with that.

Many recruits get paid to work at hockey schools - that shouldn't be a knock against programs that run them. The issue is how much do they get paid and is it 'scale'. Since UNBs Summer Hockey program is run through the department, that means it is financially over seen by the Finance Department with T4As and dedications made which also means they can't pay athletes more than they take in. Other team/department/schools may run their camps off-book/privately which gives them the right to pay whatever they want. Once again - don't knock a program for engaging in proactive approaches to assisting their athletes.

In closing - do slush funds exist, probably. Do Booster's exist, absolutely. Does every athletic program do it, probably. Does every hockey team, probably. Do some do it better than others, and by 'better' I mean focus on approaches that are above board and stay an arms length away from boosters, yes. Do some programs have more engaged boosters, yes.
As a program, you can no longer make a few calls, get a few bodies and go into the season looking for a championship. You have to provide AFA support, part-time employment options, tutors, meals, coaching/medial/motivation support, etc to get the best talent. Money under the table might get you a good player, but you need a team to win.

AUS Roster Cap

I don't believe this will change anything in the AUS (I don't see UNB getting weaker and DAL/STU stronger). It hurt teams that encounter injuries. I suspect in a year or two the limit of 22 will be increased to 24 when a few teams are hit with injury bugs and lose their last few games and drop out of the playoffs.

This will hurt the marginal 4th line players (eg. UNB's; Lynes, Salituro, Keranen, Steve Pearce, Hodgson) who would not be signed because you don't have space to carry them.

I agree it will disperse a few players, but talent will go where it wants. Had this been in a few years ago - would Slaituro, Wudrick, Priamo and Lynes be playing for UNB, probably not. Would they all be playing for SFX, probably not - likely one. Would the others all go to other AUS teams, not likely - they go where they think they can win (Lakehead, Western, USask, AB, etc).

Do I think this rules was intended to handicap UNB, yes. Do I think it's being positioned and disguised as a 'cost savings' measure, yes. Do I see it being revoked in a few years, yes. Each team now has to be 100% sure they're getting the best candidate - that means working extra hard to get the best which means all schools are now under even more pressure to provide extra incentives (which leads to the discussion above). Did UNB have some quality talent in the stands some nights, yes, but it was the athletes choice to come here and sit.

Click to read more...

 

[MiamiHockey]

I take issue with the word 'pay' which implies salary, taxes, etc. Instead I think a better word is "allowance". I don't believe any school knowingly uses funds from their budget (outside of the normal CIS AFAs) to support a player or group of players.

There was an interesting article in the Edmonton Journal, I believe, in the mid-2000's in which a U of A Golden Bear player was quoted (in the newspaper) as stating that they got some "spending money" to help out. (I wish I could find the article again, but I have not been able to). Obviously, this article raced like wildfire through the coaching community with eyebrows raised everywhere.

The U of A, obviously, has an exceptional hockey alumni, so that "spending money" could have easily come from the alumni. Like you, I would be stunned if department funds were used in such a manner.

Also, the team/department/school can not control the actions of a third party from supporting a player or group of players (the local 'booster' club)

Well, yes and no. Any good coach would want to maximize the support he gets. If you were a coach, and you had a stud recruit in the mix, what would you do?

But, here's the question ... entrance standards aside (another topic for another day) ... is it a good thing for teams to (directly or indirectly) be able to provide funds to their players?

And, for argument's sake, let's assume that funds are being provided to players on some teams.

 

[Hollywood3]

I don't see the roster cap and the "under the table" dollars floating around as the same issue.

The programs with available cash will still have that cash and use it for the players they want. With fewer players competing for the available cash it would tend to drive up the dollars available per player.

Therefore, if anything, the roster limit would make the recruiting of top prospects by average teams less likely.

I believe that the AUS teams believe that they will gain by having a better shot at the lower-end recruits who would otherwise have limited playing time for a season or two. However, since the AUS teams do the most recruiting outside their own region, the net effect may be more recruits for the CW and OUA.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

In-kind support

Where does one draw the line with non-monetary support, that is taboo in the NCAA but probably prevalent in the CIS? Such as ...

The players that get "hosted/sponsored" by a local family who cook them a meal from time to time?

The sponsor/supporter who lets them golf for free or reduced rate?

Sponsor/supporter who gives them free or reduced rate on a gym membership?

Sponsor/supporter who gives them a discount in their restaurant?

Sponsor/supporter who basically puts them first in line for a summer job?

Beer rep who drops off brew for a player BBQ?

Sponsor/supporter who gives them a discount on their apartment/condo rent?

 

[FreddyFoyle]

I don't see the roster cap and the "under the table" dollars floating around as the same issue.

The programs with available cash will still have that cash and use it for the players they want. With fewer players competing for the available cash it would tend to drive up the dollars available per player.

Therefore, if anything, the roster limit would make the recruiting of top prospects by average teams less likely.

I believe that the AUS teams believe that they will gain by having a better shot at the lower-end recruits who would otherwise have limited playing time for a season or two. However, since the AUS teams do the most recruiting outside their own region, the net effect may be more recruits for the CW and OUA.

This.

 

[STUTOMMIES]

Nobody could possibly claim that their school is perfect and lets remember guilty is guilty, if you give $1 or $10,000 it is against the rules. But cash aside for a bit, it is also against to rules to tell a recruit they will receive "insert item here" if they play for your school unless it is in the confines of the AFA. Am I correct? I can't - by the rules - - if I am the coach - tell a perspective recruit that if he comes to my school my alumni will give him unlimited ice cream because that is what I think he wants to hear. But what if Mr. Ice Cream man alumni offers him all the ice cream he can eat when he comes to school, that is OK. Sure, as long as the program never made it a prerequisite of him coming. A little a bit of a grey area.

There are always things that happen and they make you go hmmmm, they don't add up. For example, a recruit is from New Brunswick and goes to the USask, he is recruited by several teams. He has a girlfriend - who becomes his wife in this story - and she gets a job at U Sask the same year the player is recruited. Why does that player go to U Sask? Because he couldn't get a BBA or BSKin in NB? If everything is equal, why would you go half way across the country for something you could, at least, get in NB or NS? Besides, he has options because he is being recruited by others. And if two people are coming, doesn't that cost more? Do the economics make sense? In Foyle's model I don't think this makes sense.

 

[Drummer]

But cash aside for a bit, it is also against to rules to tell a recruit they will receive "insert item here" if they play for your school unless it is in the confines of the AFA. Am I correct?

You are correct - that is not allowed. You can't promise a car, a job for your girlfriend, rent, food, etc.

But a smart coach would never mention that - he would let the booster come forward and offer it on their own. This makes it arm's length. The coach probably knows it's going to happen, but he doesn't help facilitate it. He lets the booster/supporter take the lead.

I don't care for this myself - third party stuff is always open to interpretation and if it goes south - it generally gets messy and ends up in the paper. An AFA, CHL funds and a merit award/hockey school funds should be all anyone needs.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

STUTommie, all things being equal, never underestimate the draw for some players to go to a team where they have a good chance to win a ring. Especially if they haven't won in Junior.

 

[STUTOMMIES]

STUTommie, all things being equal, never underestimate the draw for some players to go to a team where they have a good chance to win a ring. Especially if they haven't won in Junior.

I won't add as much "value" to it as you will but it is one reason sure. But lets be honest with some issues shall we. The western studs that come to the AUS - and this is the point that the western posters on here are making - what incentive is there to go east when A.) you could have a good chance to win a championship with Alberta, Man. or Sask. And remember Alberta was UNB just a few years ago. B.) A good education is just as easy to find from BC to Man. as it is from NB to NS. C.) A disproportional percentage of WHL studs recruits come to the AUS over the OUA, if you want to see a different region of Canada (an excuse I have heard) why not Upper Canada? And before you say the OUA has different rules when it comes to AFAs, scholarships, etc…..well isn't that the point?

So if I understand UNB's way of thinking, it comes down to the player can get more in the west or east than the OUA for AFA's but getting more is secondary to winning a championship (don't tell the X, ACA, or PEI guys, shhhhhh) that you have little chance of winning with a CW team and besides for the exact same degree and AFA's I will move all the way across the country to see how beautiful Maritimers are.
If you want to meet Maritimers go to Edmonton, there are more of them there than there is on PEI.

Am I a long way off here?

 

[MiamiHockey]

What incentive is there to go east when A.) you could have a good chance to win a championship with Alberta, Man. or Sask. And remember Alberta was UNB just a few years ago. B.) A good education is just as easy to find from BC to Man. as it is from NB to NS. C.) A disproportional percentage of WHL studs recruits come to the AUS over the OUA, if you want to see a different region of Canada (an excuse I have heard) why not Upper Canada? And before you say the OUA has different rules when it comes to AFAs, scholarships, etc…..well isn't that the point?
Am I a long way off here?

Please add Lakehead into the "what other reason would they have to go there?" equation. At least the AUS schools, are in / remotely close to nice cities.

I believe that you have raised the exact issues that teams in the OUA have long been raising in terms of the disproportionate number of players from all three Major Junior leagues who head to the AUS.

Why, exactly, would player X from small-town Saskatchewan / Ontario go to Atlantic Canada to play, when that implies that his family would rarely, if ever, get the chance to see him play?

One thing is noteworthy ... CIS hockey has never been as big a draw in the OUA as it is in either the AUS or CWUAA - Lakehead being the notable exception (and perhaps Nipissing recently). Whatever the reason for that, it does mean that OUA teams are dealing with smaller budgets.

 

[wolf13]

Please add Lakehead into the "what other reason would they have to go there?" equation. At least the AUS schools, are in / remotely close to nice cities.

I believe that you have raised the exact issues that teams in the OUA have long been raising in terms of the disproportionate number of players from all three Major Junior leagues who head to the AUS.

Why, exactly, would player X from small-town Saskatchewan / Ontario go to Atlantic Canada to play, when that implies that his family would rarely, if ever, get the chance to see him play?

One thing is noteworthy ... CIS hockey has never been as big a draw in the OUA as it is in either the AUS or CWUAA - Lakehead being the notable exception (and perhaps Nipissing recently). Whatever the reason for that, it does mean that OUA teams are dealing with smaller budgets.

I bet if you looked at US college sports you would probably find that say a disproportionate number of football players from say California end up playing football in the Big10 or that a disproportionate numbers amount of high end basketball players end up playing in the state of North Carolina. Certain schools create pipelines to certain states based on the success of a few recruits from those states.

Schools like UNC, Duke, Kentucky, and Kansas have a history of winning that attracts players. Look at the university of Gonzaga and look how they recruit. Its because they have been able to win and really nothing more. They aren't a prestigious academic school, they aren't located in and ideal area. They win and because of that recruits want to play for them.

In the last 19 years only Alberta from Canada West has won a university cup and one other school (Saskatchewan) has made a championship game. That effects the perception of players as to whether anyone in Canada West outside of Alberta has a chance to win.

An Ontario school hasn't won the University Cup in the last 11 seasons.

McGilll, UQTR, and Concordia along with Moncton have a stranglehold on Quebec players for obvious reasons.

The AUS has had half its teams reach a national final in the last 10 years.

 

[STUTOMMIES]

I bet if you looked at US college sports you would probably find that say a disproportionate number of football players from say California end up playing football in the Big10 or that a disproportionate numbers amount of high end basketball players end up playing in the state of North Carolina. Certain schools create pipelines to certain states based on the success of a few recruits from those states.

Schools like UNC, Duke, Kentucky, and Kansas have a history of winning that attracts players. Look at the university of Gonzaga and look how they recruit. Its because they have been able to win and really nothing more. They aren't a prestigious academic school, they aren't located in and ideal area. They win and because of that recruits want to play for them.

In the last 19 years only Alberta from Canada West has won a university cup and one other school (Saskatchewan) has made a championship game. That effects the perception of players as to whether anyone in Canada West outside of Alberta has a chance to win.

An Ontario school hasn't won the University Cup in the last 11 seasons.

McGilll, UQTR, and Concordia along with Moncton have a stranglehold on Quebec players for obvious reasons.

The AUS has had half its teams reach a national final in the last 10 years.

All really great points. Agree with every one of them. But in the case of the AUS did the egg come first or did the chicken when it comes to hockey funding?

So the question that is raised is why and how did the AUS become what it has? Those first players to make the conference so good came because of academics, great recruiting, and ________ (fill in the blank)

The condescension shown towards our OUA and CW posters from some of the AUS posters should really stop. They aren't stupid and I don't think it is right that if one of them talks about the big pink elephant in the room that they will be ignored for it. Speak up and say what you want. If you don't like what they are saying, say so or ignore it.

 

[MiamiHockey]

I bet if you looked at US college sports you would probably find that say a disproportionate number of football players from say California end up playing football in the Big10 or that a disproportionate numbers amount of high end basketball players end up playing in the state of North Carolina. Certain schools create pipelines to certain states based on the success of a few recruits from those states.

Schools like UNC, Duke, Kentucky, and Kansas have a history of winning that attracts players. Look at the university of Gonzaga and look how they recruit. Its because they have been able to win and really nothing more. They aren't a prestigious academic school, they aren't located in and ideal area. They win and because of that recruits want to play for them.

An Ontario school hasn't won the University Cup in the last 11 seasons.

McGilll, UQTR, and Concordia along with Moncton have a stranglehold on Quebec players for obvious reasons.

The AUS has had half its teams reach a national final in the last 10 years.

It's very convenient to argue that players choose certain schools due to their winning tradition (or some perception of the "chance to win").

But, a school like Lakehead is where the "Winning Tradition" argument breaks down. (No disrespect intended to anyone from TBay ...) Lakehead is a small school with weak academics located in a remote city with harsh conditions, and the team needs to travel tremendous distances to play. Yet, it formed a program with external funding and, poof, within 3 years sprinted to the top of the standings.

Some might argue that great players chose Lakehead for the chance to win. Yet, out of the same OUA West conference, Western routinely goes to CIS Nationals, and has been in the CIS Final Game 3 times in the last 12 years. Moreover, Western is a better school academically (by any measure you choose), and is in a nicer place to live.

So, what other incentives could there be to go to Lakehead?

 

[wolf13]

It's very convenient to argue that players choose certain schools due to their winning tradition (or some perception of the "chance to win").

But, a school like Lakehead is where the "Winning Tradition" argument breaks down. (No disrespect intended to anyone from TBay ...) Lakehead is a small school with weak academics located in a remote city with harsh conditions, and the team needs to travel tremendous distances to play. Yet, it formed a program with external funding and, poof, within 3 years sprinted to the top of the standings.

Some might argue that great players chose Lakehead for the chance to win. Yet, out of the same OUA West conference, Western routinely goes to CIS Nationals, and has been in the CIS Final Game 3 times in the last 12 years. Moreover, Western is a better school academically (by any measure you choose), and is in a nicer place to live.

So, what other incentives could there be to go to Lakehead?

Hockey is king at UNB, STFX, UPEI, and probably Acadia and I'm guessing is held in pretty high regard at Saint Mary's and Moncton as well.

Western is known as an elite football school. That isn't a knock on them, that's just how it is. Lakehead on the other hand has no football team. OUA football generates a lot of media coverage for schools and because of that a lot of them put a lot of their resources into football. Western puts a lot more support behind their football program than their hockey program.

With Canada West you also have to consider how much travel is involved for the schools in that conference. Those WHL players who end up playing in the AUS know full well what a grind that is from their days of playing in the WHL.

Where are the complaints about why Alberta's complete domination of Canada West (shouldn't UBC considering their stature and location be at the top of their conference) or Carleton's sudden domination of the entire CSI in basketball? What about Laval dominating football?

 

[wolf13]

All really great points. Agree with every one of them. But in the case of the AUS did the egg come first or did the chicken when it comes to hockey funding?

So the question that is raised is why and how did the AUS become what it has? Those first players to make the conference so good came because of academics, great recruiting, and ________ (fill in the blank)

The condescension shown towards our OUA and CW posters from some of the AUS posters should really stop. They aren't stupid and I don't think it is right that if one of them talks about the big pink elephant in the room that they will be ignored for it. Speak up and say what you want. If you don't like what they are saying, say so or ignore it.

Condescension? The fact that you don't like what some posters' opinions are doesn't make them condescending.

 

[STUTOMMIES]

Condescension? The fact that you don't like what some posters' opinions are doesn't make them condescending.

I'm not perfect, first to admit it. Cookie cutter is a prime example, he really grinds my gears. If you don't see how some poster, typically the Squirrels on here, try to control the message then I am sorry for that. This isn't purely a UNB board and if someone such as Miami Hockey wants to share his opinion on what he holds to be true, then let him. You don't try to belittle the person by passive aggressively saying things like "I deal in facts" "prove it then" or so on. Have the debate or don't but don't try to control it and then have your like minded friends come in and agree with you.

UNB doesn't cheat, everything is 100% above board academically and finically at that fine institution and all the rumours and innuendo are fabricated. Hockey players go there because they want to be on a championship team and get a degree from one of the most prestigious universities in the country. Fair enough?

OK, so now I expect you to call me out. And so it goes..

 

[wolf13]

I'm not perfect, first to admit it. Cookie cutter is a prime example, he really grinds my gears. If you don't see how some poster, typically the Squirrels on here, try to control the message then I am sorry for that. This isn't purely a UNB board and if someone such as Miami Hockey wants to share his opinion on what he holds to be true, then let him. You don't try to belittle the person by passive aggressively saying things like "I deal in facts" "prove it then" or so on. Have the debate or don't but don't try to control it and then have your like minded friends come in and agree with you.

UNB doesn't cheat, everything is 100% above board academically and finically at that fine institution and all the rumours and innuendo are fabricated. Hockey players go there because they want to be on a championship team and get a degree from one of the most prestigious universities in the country. Fair enough?

OK, so now I expect you to call me out. And so it goes..

The fact that you use the term "squirrels" just shows who the condescending one is.

 

[STUTOMMIES]

The fact that you use the term "squirrels" just shows who the condescending one is.

You got me. The guilt I feel now is overwhelming. Seriously, I have many Squirrel firends and if anything I consider myself to be their conscience. Someone needs to keep their heads from exploding.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

Where are the complaints about why Alberta's complete domination of Canada West (shouldn't UBC considering their stature and location be at the top of their conference) or Carleton's sudden domination of the entire CSI in basketball? What about Laval dominating football?

This. I don't see any push to somehow restrain Carleton from dominating CIS basketball. The CIS has in recent years introduced an age cap in football to level the playing field a bit, but I haven't seen them do anything else to restrict Laval's dominance.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

Regarding the attraction of winning teams, the coach of Nipissing was quoted a few years ago complaining that many guys he talked to from the OHL would rather go to the AUS and be a depth player rather than get top minutes on his (new then) team.

UNB doesn't get everyone MacDougall wants, but those studs from the WHL still often land in the AUS. Some guys want to ensure that their new team will give them top-6 forward (or top D pairing) ice time, including power play time, that might not be there right away at UNB.Some guys want to play with their buddies from Junior. Some go where their girlfriend can get into the program she wants. I've known cases were guys want to get as far away as they can from their hockey parents. Sadly, sometimes they want to get away from legal troubles at home. There are a ton of non-monetary reasons (if you consider that the top hockey programs are all offering similar AFA's).

Another reason. As has been pointed out, the AUS is the top draw for CIS men's hockey attendance. It matters in the Maritimes. I believe all eight AUS teams were in the CIS Top 10 for attendence this past season. More fans means more excitement in the rink, and more revenue to put back into the hockey program. I know it is a factor for some recruits that they are going to play in front of several hundred to three thousand plus hockey fans in an AUS rink as opposed to a handful in some OUA or Canada West barns.

One thing no one has mentioned yet is that most AUS teams line-up fall exhibition road trip games against NCAA teams in the Hockey East and ECAC conferences, including big names like Boston College and prestigious names like Yale and Harvard. Lots of chances to get noticed by scouts at those games for post-CIS minor pro opportunities as well. Yes, I know the OUA plays in New England too, but not Canada West.

Do you still think money is the only determinant where a player goes?

 

[MiamiHockey]

Regarding the attraction of winning teams, the coach of Nipissing was quoted a few years ago complaining that many guys he talked to from the OHL would rather go to the AUS and be a depth player rather than get top minutes on his (new then) team.

Some go where their girlfriend can get into the program she wants.

The AUS is the top draw for CIS men's hockey attendance.

Yes, I know the OUA plays in New England too, but not Canada West.

Do you still think money is the only determinant where a player goes?

There is no doubt that it's more enjoyable to play in front of a good crowd rather than in front of family and friends as in Toronto. No disagreement there.

But ... Canada West teams play exhibition games against (e.g.) Minnesota, Denver, etc. It's a bit of a stretch, to say the least, to say that anyone would choose UNB over Sask because they play Boston College instead of Minnesota.

And, if it's winning a championship that matters the most, then Western presents the best opportunity, because they are more likely to get out of the OUA West than any team is to get out of the AUS.

So what's left? Admission standards?

 

[Rob]

Back in the 90's I was in Wolfville and talked to a player from Saskatchewan. He loved the short bus trips. In the AUS you spend the least amount of time on the road by far.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

But ... Canada West teams play exhibition games against (e.g.) Minnesota, Denver, etc. It's a bit of a stretch, to say the least, to say that anyone would choose UNB over Sask because they play Boston College instead of Minnesota.

I never implied that playing New England NCAA teams was the single reason a recruit might come to the AUS. I'm proposing it is one factor in a bundle of factors.

However, some Saskatchewan-born players might (and do) choose to come to UNB because they've won 4 of the last 7 University Cups (and counting ...) and the Huskies haven't won the UCup in their lifetime. Winning matters. That's part of MacDougall's "closing" on recruiting: "Do you want to win? Do you dream big?"

You keep coming back to Western. By any measure, they do pretty well recruiting wise. I haven't heard of too many players they went after hard that ended up in the AUS, but maybe that is the case. I dunno. But their hockey team doesn't come close to getting the local media coverage that the Knights do, nor can they compete for attendance (a common problem in markets with both Major Junior and CIS teams), which wouldn't be an issue for their football team.

On the other hand, I don't know how much money the Western hockey program has raised in their "AFA pot", and if they're not close to maxing out then they could be losing out by not being able to offer AFAs to prospects who have offers from better funded programs. In that particular case, then money could be a factor, but it is all above board (who can blame a student-athlete wanting to get his education subsidized?) and the Western hockey program would have no one but themselves to blame (or maybe complain about alumni dollars flowing to the football program ... which is not really a problem at UNB, UdeM, UPEI, Dal or STU).

 

[FreddyFoyle]

So what's left? Admission standards?

I've talked about that before. It is not the fault of AUS hockey teams that the demographics in the Maritimes suck with fewer high school students every year (in part due to young people, in particular young families, moving west to find work and not coming back until after they've raised their families and retired). So there's less demand every year for spots in university, so you can't be selective.

It is the opposite problem in Ontario and Alberta. Growing populations fueled by Canadian migration plus immigration. Lots of competition to get into provincial universities. Therefore you can be highly selective. Simple law of supply and demand.

 

[MiamiHockey]

I never implied that playing New England NCAA teams was the single reason a recruit might come to the AUS. I'm proposing it is one factor in a bundle of factors.

I'm saying it's a complete non-factor, because the western NCAA teams are just as good and just as high-profile as the New England teams.

You keep coming back to Western. By any measure, they do pretty well recruiting wise.

That's because Western is an example of the opposite of everything that has been argued in favour of the AUS teams. It is a great school (certainly Top 10 in terms of academic reputation in Canada), in a great location, with shorter travel times than the AUS. They normally play exhibition games against Michigan and Michigan State, and go to the CIS Championships roughly every 2nd year.

So what's different about Western vs. the AUS teams that recruit more successfully?

Attendance
Academic Standards
Funding

That's all I'm saying. It's not a personal attack on UNB or its supporters, just the reality of the situation.

I think there's really nothing else to discuss here, to be frank, because we see two diverging opinions on the same issues.

Incidentally, I personally see nothing wrong with a player choosing to go to UNB or St FX because they can get more of their education or living expenses paid for, or because they can get into a program that they (or their girlfriend ) couldn't get into at another school. Good for them. I'd probably do the same. The fact is, most Major Junior players have an average in the mid to low 70's, when you need an average in the high 80's or low 90's to get into most of the programs at McGill, Queen's, or Western.

But, please, enough with claiming that the vast recruiting success in the AUS has to do with the charm of the coaching staff, exposure to scouts, or the opportunity to win championships. Those arguments don't hold up.