Progression of Sports at CUC

Canadian University College currently fields a number of extramural sports teams in a variety of leagues. With four teams, CUC is as athletically active as I, a fourth-year student, can remember. We are represented in men’s soccer, men’s basketball, women’s soccer, and women’s volleyball. However, things haven’t always been like this at CUC. In fact, it wasn’t until 1982, seventy-five years into the existence of the college, that CUC even had an extramural team.

They were known as the “Hilltop Angels,” a very ironic name for the dirty manner of hockey that they played while they participated in a local men’s league.

The Hilltop Angels were organized by a group of dorm students and had relative success in their first year of existence, thanks to the supervision of the dormitory dean.

In their second year, however, they no longer had someone looking over their shoulders. The dean was too busy taking care of school issues and the rest of the faculty decided that the players would be able to figure things out for themselves.

The students, however, were unable to represent CUC in a way that uplifted the college.

What was once, only a year earlier, a highly competitive team that the school could be proud of was now a disrespectful team with its own prerogative.

Ron Schafer, a young faculty member at the time played goal for the team. Only three games into the second season he quit because of the way things were being run. “It was humiliating,” Schaefer told me in a recent interview, “it was embarrassing and it was wrong the way the game was being played.”

The dorm team allowed a number of alumni players to participate on the squad for added depth and grit. Many on the team wanted to shed the “soft” Christian image rather than choosing to set a good example with sportsmanship and excellence. “They wanted to prove how dirty they could be,” Schafer said, “and to make a long story short – our team was kicked out of the league before the second season was finished.”

It took 75 years to field that first team; with all the efforts that were put into allowing students represent CUC in athletic competition it was a major letdown to have the Hilltop Angels go out like that.

However, even though the team will go down as the most infamous CUC has ever had, it was still a team. It meant that the acceptance of sports was becoming more evident than ever before.

It meant that progress was being made.

Mr. Schafer, now the head of the athletic department at CUC, said that when he arrived at this school to teach “the sports environment was zero.” There was nothing in place for extramural activities. There was a fear that the competition would bring out the worst in the students; and in the case of the Hilltop Angels, it did.

But Schafer made it his personal goal to get something going. “I wanted everything to happen overnight…but over time I realized that gradual change is much better.” Slower change is better, he explained, because it gives people a chance to adapt and figure out how to do things properly.

CUC had to figure out how to do things better. The Hilltop Angels were a failure and if they were going to have extramural sports at CUC then something had to change. “At least if we play right and fairly,” Schafer stated, “we [could] be a witness by the way we play.” The purpose of sports is not necessarily to win or lose. Of course the idea is to come out on top, but it would be better to lose with good sportsmanship than to win with a poor attitude.

The attitude needed to change.

Competitive sports shows what people are really made of, which was always one of the fears within Adventist circles. The whole idea of somebody getting angry over a game never seemed to bode well with constituency.

Schafer had another view on the matter.

“In my opinion,” Schafer said, “if you can’t take second place, then it is better to discover it in basketball than in a job or business or relationship.”

Schafer came to CUC with the goal in mind to get something going. It wasn’t an easy goal coming off of the escapades of the Hilltop Angels, but it was his goal nonetheless. Many would have stepped aside and allowed administration to do what administration does, but Schafer wanted more. He wanted a chance to show people how to do it correctly.

As people’s minds opened up towards giving sports a second chance at CUC, Schafer realized that there were other issues to deal with as well.

For things to be done right at CUC it is much more difficult than what it would be at most other schools.

The problems that our school faced and continues to face all boils down to one thing: a lack of student population. Sure, there are other problems. There is a lack of funding and a lack of dedicated coaches. There is also our religious affiliation that allows us a day rest away from the competition of this world.

I prefer not to refer to the latter as a “problem” but it is an obstacle when it comes to participating in extramural sports. It can, however, be dealt with rather easily.

A good reputation goes a long way towards removing the Sabbath obstacle and allowing us to excel in any kind of competition. “If we had a good quality program and product,” Schafer said, “these leagues would allow us in there and adjust for it.”

Still, CUC is left with a Catch 22 situation. We need more student population to fund more sports, but we also need more sports to obtain a larger student population.

The question remains: how does CUC dedicate itself towards a basketball program, hockey program, soccer program, or volleyball program without knowing if there will be enough athletes to make it worthwhile?

It can’t.

Last year we had a highly successful hockey team. This year we don’t have one at all. Last year we had no men’s soccer or basketball teams. This year we have both. There is such a variety of students coming in and going out that is hard to anticipate which sport to support.

“The statistics show that on any given population,” Schafer said, “only 10 percent are serious athletes.” At CUC that would give us forty athletes; a number that doesn’t go very far.

Schafer does, however, believe that this problem can be solved. “If kids know there will be a program they will be more likely to come.” By focussing on having a few stable programs rather than several shaky ones, CUC could give more students a reason to come. As it stands now, they cannot recruit players for any one sport due to the fact that it might not even exist the following year.

And then there’s the small problem regarding money.

CUC has a very limited budget set aside for athletics. The fact is, we cannot pay our coaches enough to make the position lucrative nor can we afford to allow any athletes to have significant scholarships. On top of that there are league fees, cost of travel, and many other expenses that turn up over the course of a year.

None of these expenses, however, can be used as an excuse to disregard sports at CUC. “It’s here to stay,” Schafer said. “We should get the resources and personnel to improve it constantly.”

Constant change has been happening and will continue to happen. Twenty-Five years ago nobody would have thought that CUC could have supported four sports teams like we do now. “The issue is no longer a right or wrong issue,” Schafer explained. Those issues have been dealt with. Now we have to deal with the issue of improving on the foundations that have been put in place.

“In ten years,” Schafer added, “I’d like to believe that we could have three or four teams that we can count on.”

If done right then sports could be a very good thing for CUC. However, if done wrong it could also be a very negative thing as we saw happen with the Hilltop Angels.

Let us move forward not backwards and make sports a reality at CUC for not only today, but also for tomorrow.

—Article to be published in the next Aurora Chronicles—

NBA Rookie Roundup

The NBA age restrictions have made it so that this year’s rookie class is more depleted than usual. Typically, high school players would have made the jump and added some major talent to the pool. This year’s class is the first and possibly even the only class to see the effects of the new rule. The added depth has been put on hold until next year; a year where the missing high-school players won’t be as noticeable due to the incoming stars that were held off from entering the NBA this season.

It has taken a while for the rookies to get going this year and no one player stands out among the crowd as being better than the rest. Many have called this year’s crop a bust, but I have more faith in these youngsters than that. I believe that many of them will turn into very solid contributors while a few even have all-star potential. Sure, this isn’t 1984 (Hakeem, MJ, Barkley, and Stockton), 2003 (Lebron, Melo, Bosh, and Wade), 1996 (Iverson, Camby, Ray Allen, Kobe, Peja, Nash, and Jermaine O’Neal), or even 2007 for that matter (Odom, Durant, and Joakim Noah); but that doesn’t mean that it’s an all out bust.

These guys can play and their impact will be evident for years to come. Without further adieu, here is my 2006-07 rookie roundup.

Top 10 Picks (as drafted into the league):
Andrea Bargnani (Italy – Toronto Raptors)
The “Italian Job” has brought it all to Toronto. It took him some time to get the feel for the North American game, but this youngster who once said it was easier to shoot threes than anything else (because it’s always the same distance) is now taking control for the surging Raptors.

It took him ten games to get his first double-digit scoring output of the season, but he’s stepped up ever since with consistent scoring and energy off the bench. In the last month he’s averaging 14.8ppg, 4.6rpg, and dropping 2.5 treys. MVP candidate Dirk Nowitzki has stated that Bargnani is better than he was at twenty-one, but the young guy still has a long way to go. Nonetheless, the Raptors made the right choice on draft day and have a very formidable front for many years with Bosh and Bargs leading the way.

LaMarcus Aldridge (Texas – Portland Trailblazers)
It has taken the big man a while to get some time in the crowded Portland frontcourt, but it seems like he is finally getting his chance due to injuries which are depleting the roster. Przybilla was lost for the season due to a knee injury and LaFrentz is out with a strained left calf. That leaves Jamaal Magloire as Aldridge’s lone competition and coach Nate McMillan has said that he’s sticking with the rookie for now.

Since grabbing the starting center spot at the beginning of March, Aldridge has gone for 30 points on 12 of 19 shooting but then followed up that effort with 3 points on 1 for 12 shooting. He’ll need to prove himself to be a consistent contributor in order to hold on to his playing time. For now, I see him following very closely to the footsteps of sophomore Channing Frye, who has proven to be the most hopeless players with a lot of hope.

Adam Morrison (Gonzaga – Charlotte Bobcats)
Whoever compared the Sasquatch to Larry Bird has obviously never seen Larry Bird play. Morrison had an incredible college career, but he has simply been unable to carry this over to the NBA. Will he be a solid contributor? No doubt. Will he be a superstar? I doubt.

His talent is unquestionable, but his athleticism is the major problem. The NBA has eliminated the edge he had on his opponents in college due to taller, longer, and quicker defenders. Morrison has failed to adapt and will, in my mind, fail to become an all-star like many felt he was destined to become. In my opinion, the best case scenario for Ammo is for him to become a slightly more creative Kyle Korver.

Tyrus Thomas (LSU – Chicago Bulls)
This young stud from LSU is filled with potential. He’s a high-flyer who can execute on both ends of the court. His blocking ability is uncanny and he finds his way to the rim offensively as well. However, he needs to work on polishing up his moves in the post as well as adding to his range. In fact, the kid might as well change his name to Stromile Swift, because everything I’ve said so far is the exact same thing people said about the StroShow upon his entrance into the NBA. Need more proof of the similarities? Here’s a rookie season comparison of the two:

Stromile Swift (2000-01): 16 mpg, 45% FG, 60% FT, 4.9ppg, 3.6rpg, 0.4apg, 0.8 steals, 1 block, 0.8 TO.
Tyrus Thomas (2006-07): 11 mpg, 46% FG, 58% FT, 4.1ppg, 3.0rpg, 0.5apg, 0.6 steals, 1 block, 1.3 TO.

Shelden Williams (Duke – Atlanta Hawks)
Well, at least the Hawks didn’t mess up as bad this year as they did in the 2005 draft by passing on Chris Paul in favor of Marvin Williams. Shelden Williams has shown a lot of promise at moments when he’s had the opportunity to play (just look at his late-December numbers if you don’t believe me). However, his major problem is that he is lost in the depth-chart like many other rookies in the league.

With the Hawks wanting to play the upbeat style that is becoming the newest trend, Shelden Williams finds himself fighting for time behind the athletic duo of Josh Smith and Marvin Williams. It’s only a matter of time, however, until Shelden figures out his role on the team. I believe he has the ability to be a consistent contributor if given consistent minutes – and there’s no reason the Hawks can pass on that because it’s exactly what they need.

Brandon Roy (Washington – Portland Trailblazers)
Rookie of the Year is spelled ROY. Brandon Roy came into this season as the projected cream of the crop and he hasn’t disappointed. Sure, it is a bit easier to steal the award this year compared to usual; but Brandon Roy has been spectacular nonetheless. I don’t necessarily believe that he will be the best player from this group five years from now or even three, for that matter. But he is the leading candidate for the ROY honor at this moment.

He has been getting more minutes per game than any other candidate, thus vaulting his stats to higher levels than other rookies see possible. He leads the class with 15.5 PPG and adds to that a combined 8.1 assists and rebounds per contest. His percentages are highly respectable (45% FG and 83% FT) and he’s adding to that 1.2 steals per game. There’s no reason why Roy shouldn’t get the rookie of the year, although other rookies are getting chances later in the season with extra playing time that they never saw earlier in the year.

Randy Foye (Villanova – Minnesota Timberwolves)
When Kevin Garnett requests that the Timberwolves replace you with Troy Hudson for the starting guard position, you know you haven’t produced. Garnett has put up with many lacklustre starters alongside him in Minny: Michael Olowokandi, Marko Jaric, Eddie Griffin, and even Anthony Peeler (a man who would later elbow-punch Garnett in the face while playing for Sacramento).

Foye was supposed to be the T-Wolves second or third scoring option this season; he is currently fifth on the team with 9 PPG. He has all the potential in the world, which is why he went seventh overall in the draft. It’s just a matter of time until he puts his tools to use and gets that starting position back for good.

Rudy Gay (UConn – Memphis Grizzlies)
He is the most athletic player from the 2006-07 draft (other than James White) and has the ability to become a big time player in the future. He has a freakish 7’3” wingspan that has allowed him to combine for 1.8 steals and blocks per game.

Gay had a slow start to the season, which has held his shooting percentage to 42%, but he has improved of late. He has started the last twelve games for the Grizzlies and averaged 15.9 points, 6 rebounds, and just over a block per game. If he can improve on his shot selection, he has the potential to be “best in class” for a long time to come.

Patrick O’Bryant (Bradley – Golden State Warriors)
O’Bryant boosted his stock in the NCAA Tournament last year by outdueling Aaron Gray and carrying the Bradley Braves to the Sweet Sixteen. However, so far this season he has only seen action in 16 games for the Warriors while averaging less than eight minutes per contest. He has been sent down to the development league for extended periods of time and simply doesn’t seem to be capable of working himself into the Warriors rotation.

With Biedrins, Foyle, Harrington, and Powell ahead of him in the PF/C rotation, it doesn’t seem likely that O’Bryant will be seeing any significant playing time this year or next. But hey, who knows? It’s impossible to know what the guy is made of until he’s had his time to shine. For now, much like what happened at Bradley (which led to an eight game suspension), O’Bryant is simply getting paid for work that he’s not doing; and it is fine by him I’m sure.

Mouhamed Sene (Senegal – Seattle Supersonics)
Much like O’Bryant, Mouhamed Sene hasn’t played enough in the NBA to warrant much analysis. He has played in 19 games with less than six minutes per contest. He is said to be an amazing physical specimen with a 7’8” wingspan, but is also very raw on the offensive end of the court (partly because he only started playing basketball in 2003).

At only twenty years of age, Sene has a lot of time to develop himself into the type of player the Sonics plan on him becoming. Whether or not he was worth the 10th pick in the NBA draft is another question that is impossible to answer until we see what this man is made of.

Notes on the Rest:
The top ten typically contains most of the all-star potential. However, this year the draft is more evened out than usual. There will be many key contributors out of the remaining fifty picks (and undrafted rookies) that will have an impact for years to come.

Here are a few other names to keep in mind when considering whether or not this year’s draft class is a bust:

Kelenna Azubuike (G.S. – Undrafted) has raised eyebrows of late, putting up almost 10 points per game while filling in for the injury depleted Warriors. His stats will settle down as J-Rich and Baron Davis have returned, but he has proven himself capable of contributing in the future.

JJ Redick (Orl – 11th) was the player of the year in college. He has yet to make much of a contribution for the Magic and I doubt he ever will. He needs the perfect situation to contribute. Without a superstar scorer that can draw his defender away, Redick will always have difficulty making the contested shots.

Thabo Sefolosha (Chi – 13th) had a career game versus the Warriors on February 28 in which he put up 19 points. He was highly coveted by many during the draft and is expected to be around for years to come.

Ronnie Brewer (Utah – 14th) has been out shadowed by the Jazz’s second round stud, Paul Millsap (Utah – 47th), but he still should develop into a decent player. Brewer has allowed a starting spot slip through his fingers early on, but his potential is undeniable. Millsap, on the other hand, has fought for everything that has been given to him. He has earned his role on the rebuilt Utah roster and leads the rookies in both rebounds (5.2) and blocks (1.1) per game.

Rodney Carney (Phi – 16th) was just starting to find his spot with the 76ers before tearing his right rotator cuff (shoulder).

Renaldo Balkman (NY – 20th) is like any other switch on the Knicks roster. When Isiah Thomas flicks on his minutes he usually produces. When he flicks them off he can disappear for weeks at a time.

Rajon Rondo (Bos – 21st) is a lightning quick guard out of Kentucky that can do it all, except for hold on to the ball at times. If he can control his turnovers he has a very bright future in the league. The Celtics just need to figure out what they’re doing with the Telfair/West/Rondo logjam at point.

Marcus Williams (NJ – 22nd) is the future of New Jersey. That might be saying too much about a first year guard that has averaged 7.7 points and 3.1 assists so far, but the Nets said quite a bit when they considered trading Jason Kidd without getting another point guard in return.

Craig Smith (Min – 36th) is leading the rookies in FG% while also showing flashes of brilliance every once in a while. He’ll have trouble becoming much more than a solid contributor as he is undersized for his natural position (PF), but he has the offensive skills to go both ways in the post and the fight to overcome more skilled individuals.

James White (Drafted 31st by Indiana/Signed by San Antonio) is getting a mention here whether you like it or not. If you can show me a more creative and able dunker than this man then I’ll never mention him again.

Jorge Garbajosa (Tor – FA) is averaging 8.5 points and 5 rebounds a game while also heavily influencing the Raptors towards the winning ways that he was accustomed to in Europe. He is a proven winner on many levels, including the Olympics, and brings an understanding of the game that is very foreign to the rest of his rookie class.

— Article originally published on March 5 at Sports Central —