I think that what this article suggests is absolutely ludicrous. Giving more points to the rugby or football because they are thought as the more important sports, i.e. attract more people, is silly.

I may be biased because I am the volleyball club's president, but shouldn't the sport I play be recognised just as much as football? Do we have to start bleaching our hair? Do we have to strip on court for our points to be legitimate?

Volleyball, Basketball, Tennis, require equal amount of commitment, discpline, physical ability, coordination and team spirit of all the other 'big' sports. The fact that there are only 2, 5, or 6 players on court at a time does not mean the sport should be less recognised.

For the past 3 years the men's volleyball team have worked their socks off, got in 1st division, last year were 8th in the country, and this year despite losing some of their best players, remained in the top division in what is arguably the most competitive conference in the whole country, playing against Hallam, Sheffield and Manchester.

We, arguably, play the sport at far higher level than the football, rugby or hockey and when it comes to Roses we should be awarded less points? Madness I say.

We do not attract a large crowd because the sport is not terribly well-known in England but should that not be a reason to give us More points than the other sports? So the sport can develop and be recognised just as much as in other countries, i.e. Italy, France, Poland, Brazil and the list goes on?

If what bothers Michael is that our sport does not attract a big enough crowd I will ask the women's team to wear tighter spandex and the men's team to bleach their hair and start some stupid ritual... I am sure that will do the job!

If all else fails, I am sure that, just as this Roses has shown us, our 4 points won't be missed too much and the club won't but an appearance!

N

P.S. I apologies if my comment may have offended players of other sports. It is not my place to criticise club's practices or achievements.

The point is that everyone won Roses, it should not only be the big clubs, and that is something that should not be forgotten!

Well done everyone!

• Wed, 7th May 2008 9:22pm - Edited by the author

I'm not sure I quite agree, Michael. An interesting point to raise and admirably brave/foolhardy to do so in the immediate aftermath of victory, but you also forgot to mention that the 1st hockey and football matches were all desperately tight affairs and/or heavily influenced by sending offs. In particular in the men's first XI football, York looked to have the measure of the opposition before the nightmare sending-off.

Talking about points being weighted unfairly, there were a total of TWENTY available for rowing. I know it is historic in the Roses context, but surely this is an anomaly that needs to be seriously looked at: Lancaster got 10% of their total points and a handy opening day lead just from their rowing proficiency.
Also, your 10-point proposal is too large, it would give a massive swing and risk killing the competition on Saturday afternoon.

As an aside, I was at the mixed volleyball on Sunday morning, and the team spirit/quality of play were both fantastic. These guys are just as athletic as any other sportsmen, if not more so. Moreover, the four points claimed proved crucial to overall victory. It seems you are cheapening the achievements of most of the sportsmen at York with this article.

PS. One of the victorious Rugby Mens 2nd players made the point to me that we have 9,000 students at York versus around 20k at Lancaster. Plus, we are - arguably - more academically focused. In this context, I reckon the Roses win is all the more impressive.

Andy's right. That second yellow card our Ballroom Dancing captain got for dissent was laughable.

This is a debate we had a lot over Roses, as Footballers feeling a bit aggrieved that so many sports added up to more points than others. It doesn't seem right to me that Archery is worth 10 points, I think Fencing was worth 8, when outdoor football is worth 7. No disrespect to archery, I know it's a big club, but it just doesn't seem right.

I don't think there should be a clear distinction between the 'higher prestige' sports and 'lesser' in terms of massive points (10 is just excessive - your can't have 20 point swings on the last sunday). But I would agree to some of the headline sports should have a 5 point score rather than 4, sports like football, rugby, rowing, cricket, netball and hockey.

However I think the main re-evaluation of the point system should be in the 'under card'. Sports like fencing never rank more than 2 in any one off event (I think), but there's 4 or 5 two pointers, like in archery, that end up giving that sport's overall ranking a high weighting.

I'd be interested to see a table that added up all the points competed for by each sport, i'd be guessing that hockey and rowing would be clear of the rest, but it'd be interesting to see what the ranking was.

"Canoe water polo counted for two points, even though the York men had never played the sport before."

Firstly, that's completely untrue - York's male team have been competing in regional canoe polo tournaments year-round, and our captain has represented York at Roses for three years now. Secondly, I believe the rules are that as a BUSA playing club, we're just as entitled to points as footballers are! In fact, I believe we ought to receive 4 rather than 2, but because no one has actually heard of the sport, we don't! Just because we're less of a spectator sport doesn't devalue our efforts towards Roses - the victorious ladies team worked incredibly hard in their match! The fact that we didn't proceed to build a naked pyramid on the hockey pitch in order to increase our profile shouldn't mean that our club is pushed aside. Besides, isn't the whole point of Roses to include minority sports - that's what all those exhibition matches were preparation for!

• Thu, 8th May 2008 5:13pm - Edited by the author

can i just point out that the fools with bleached hair were lancaster rugby and all the nakedness, throwing frisbees onto the football pitch etc was also lancaster rugby and us footballers didn't get involved in any such antics.

had it not been for the late hockey equaliser the referee of the men's football 1sts would have lost york roses in the final match of the day. as post #4 says we were all over them until that ridiculous red card for goalkeeper emmerson, when two defenders were covering behind him and their player made the most of a small amount of contact...would it have been a red card if it was the defender that made the tackle? no. and let's not forget ed murrills scored a goal that was very wrongly ruled out for offside. we also had the better of them with 10 men until their 2nd goal (which took a huge deflection to wrong-foot george) but chasing a game with 10 men proved impossible. to have 10 points for a match so heavily influenced by bad decisions would be outrageous.

we are not a "sports" uni so surely roses should be won by strength in depth across all sports where every person counts. maybe as george says some of the weightings should be changed slightly, but not as ridiculously as 10 points for one football/rugby/hockey etc game.

"skiing...These are sports which the majority of the two sets University students will have never played."

Michael, you really need to do a little research before you make statements like the ones above. The university ski team is one of the AU's most successful sports teams. Rather than never having skied before, our team has competed from Edinburgh to Austria this season, is ranked in the top 10 BUSA snowsports teams, picked up two British podiums at the university championships in Austria where 3000 students were present, with a third of those competing. We have racers who consistently finish in the top 20 in Britain alongside athletes with international caps, and boast three mixed teams and a ladies team.

We are also one of the largest and fastest growing clubs on campus, and took 200 York students to France over Easter. Whilst skiing is not widely followed in Britain, over one and a half million Brits travel to the mountains every year, and world cup races on both sides of the Atlantic regularly host crowds larger than the capacity of Old Trafford or Wembley.

From the looks of it, it doesn't seem that skiing is the only sport that you seem to have written off so readily. Equal Roses points are not awarded to the likes of archery and volleyball as consolation for not being part of a sport that nobody cares about, as you have suggested, but because they are equally challenging in their own right, and equally recognised by BUSA.

Whilst I agree that the points system does need reviewing in the way that George and Andy have outlined above, it's perhaps an idea that the next time you decide to write for The Yorker, you consider your line of argument a little more carefully.

Aptly put Max. It is ridiculous to suggest that factors such as fan numbers or the participation ratio should determine the weighting of points at Roses. I think Michael, that you are confusing sporting ability with accessibility in your article. For example, ski racing and horse riding are difficult disciplines to master because they are restricted by factors such as money and equipment requirements. Furthermore, some of our skiers and horse riders have earned national recognition for their efforts this season at BUSA level and it is far from logical to suggest that their efforts should be worth anything other than equal to those of our footballers and hockey players during roses.
Perhaps the point you were trying to make was that new sports in which the experience level is very low on both sides should be trialled at the 2 point mark so as to give competitors an incentive to develop the sport in subsequent seasons? Or we could all just not bother and watch the football/hockey/rugby instead…

As captain of the men's volleyball club I just wanted to say that this is exactly why no one knows that we certainly were and still are one of the most sucessful teams at the university. The only way we really seem to get press is at roses or if one of our own players writes an article. This is very frustrating as we are one of the few Division 1 BUSA teams at the university. Roses is always the biggest crowd we have, but conversly throughout the season we get little or no support from the average student. Trying to devalue the commitment that we make or the validity of our sport saddens me. It is exactly this kind of thinking that stops smaller sports drawing a crowd. As for our athlectic ability, I personally have worked my arse off (quite litterally) this year and lost 2 stone, playing in excess of 10 hours a week. Why don't we publicise the events that we are good at? Why not try and timetable things so that perhaps next year, when roses is at home, volleyball gets a crowd, or snooker and pool (another incredibly sucessful club). Fine these aren't your 'big' sports, but just maybe some of the sportsmen and women playing at the highest level that they can within the university league system should be recognised. It was disappointing that there was no men's game this year as lancaster failed to provide a men's team, but had they been able to, you would hae no doubt seen a highly entertaining match.

Bottom line...why wont the university get behind the sports teams that work hard for them week in week out just because we arent a 'big' sport? Is it too much to ask?

• Mon, 12th May 2008 7:06pm - Edited by the author

I think you make some fair points there Matt, but at the same time you seem to think that the 'big' sports get enormous amounts of support from the University. As football captain we tried to drum up support for our big games on our own via Facebook and word-of-mouth. The University didn't do any of that for us.

I think when you look at the AU they support the clubs reasonably equally. I think realistically you have to look at it that volleyball isn't as mainstream as football, rugby or hockey and that's why you don't get the big crowds. I'm not questioning your hard work or training and I don't think anyone is, but people will watch the sports that they see on tv or that they see regularly anyway.

Just a few things I noticed in your post Matt -

"The only way we really seem to get press is at roses or if one of our own players writes an article"

That's pretty much how all campus reporting works - it's certainly how it has worked for Football, Rugby, Netball etc etc on the Yorker since it's inception last year.

"throughout the season we get little or no support from the average student."

I can't speak for many other sports because I'm usually competing when other fixtures are being played, but football has a very negligible support - if any at all. Support generally only comes from club members not playing on the day, I'm sure this is the same across all the sports, with the only possible exception I can think of being rugby.

"why wont the university get behind the sports teams that work hard for them week in week out just because we arent a 'big' sport? Is it too much to ask?"

Perhaps because...

"...there was no men's game this year as lancaster failed to provide a men's team,"

Just a thought.