BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS Briefing Document BUCS Sport Review

Transcription

1 BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS Briefing Document BUCS Sport Review Introduction As a part of the operational delivery of the BUCS Sport Programme, regular sport-by-sport reviews are undertaken by the Sport Programmes Department. These reviews encompass a spectrum of criteria, such as participant entry numbers, rules and regulations, and the net cost of individual events. The overall competition framework is also consistently reviewed through the network of Sport Advisory Groups (SAGs), Event Management Groups (EMGs), and National Governing Body (NGB) relationships. Within these environments, sports are evaluated in terms of their efficiency across the wider context of their delivery in the sector, from recreational to performance sport. The provision of inter-university competition sits at the very core of everything BUCS does, therefore it was agreed that an overarching framework for reviewing competition delivery was needed to align effectively with the developing BUCS Strategy: Building Better Competitions is about combining both individual sport and BUCS membership contributions, to modernise and improve existing competition offers. Our organisational vision is to deliver the best possible student sporting experience, and to achieve this we need to ensure we better understand the aspirations and vision of sports, so that we can effectively align our resources against these. It is important to note here, that the desire to review our competition delivery is grounded within evolution, rather than revolution. The agenda is not to completely disregard the current structure of BUCS competition, but rather to identify where there may be gaps in provision or opportunities for development. With the current resources available, BUCS could continue to maintain the present scale of competition delivery, however if BUCS wishes to meet the demand to improve the quality of service, explore the opportunities for developing current sports, and the desire to add new sports to the structure, then the need for a formalised review framework is clear. In order to maintain our position as the leading body for higher education (HE) sport, we need to ensure that our strategic objectives for developing inter-university competition align with those of our stakeholders. To do this we are asking all current, and potentially new, BUCS sports to assess their current offer within BUCS to highlight their strategic aspirations and objectives. BUCS Strategy: The BUCS Strategy provides an ambitious vision of where the sector will be in The strategy has been created with and by members, for members, and covers the full spectrum of HE sport. From physical activity and social & recreational sport through to the inter-university competitions, leagues and tournaments, up to performance sport. BUCS is in a very strong position to have a significant impact on the delivery of physical activity and sport within the sector. With the full engagement of all stakeholders, we will be able to show the true value and potential of HE sport at local, regional, national and international levels. Notwithstanding that creating a landscape for HE sport that caters appropriately for all involved is extremely important, it is also important to acknowledge that there is an opportunity for BUCS to facilitate, where appropriate, aligning ourselves with external NGB pathways. These are pathways that often range across the remit of the BUCS BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS Page 1 of 11

2 Strategy, from Physical Activity and Health through to Performance Sport. There is an opportunity for BUCS to define its purpose within the wider sporting landscape, and actively support the pathways that flow through HE sport. The Framework Insight from the BUCS Big Survey, conducted in spring 2017, identified that BUCS needed to do more to respond to the varying needs of students within its competition structure. As a result, the concept of a student-athlete centred framework was developed. Five student-athlete profiles have been created to help BUCS develop a more universal vocabulary across all sports as we begin to acknowledge the different types of student-athlete within each sport. The profiles are the key component of the entire review process, and will be a starting point for sports to assess their current offers. The profiles are outlined in further detail in the Sport Review Framework. Governance (process) The process through which decisions will be made following the review process, is probably the most significant consideration of the entire competitions review piece. It is essential that clear guidelines, which identify the expectations around both sport and membership consultation, are laid out and are recognisable for all stakeholders involved. We have a responsibility to adequately equip all stakeholder groups with an understanding as to whether they are making strategic, operational or tactical decisions, or whether their charge is to offer opinion to facilitate an executive decision. During this review process we will be asking sports (Sport Advisory Groups and/or National Governing Bodies) to assess the current landscape of their sport within BUCS: in the case of sports not currently offered within BUCS, we will be asking for an assessment of an equivalent offer (e.g. National Student Championships). Following these assessments, we will then be asking sports to make suggestions about possible changes or developments that are focused on improving the student-athlete experience. These suggestions will be in the format of initial proposals based on the Sport Review Framework. BUCS will then collate these sport specific suggestions and undertake a consultation process with our membership to garner their feedback. Through this process BUCS will be able to make strategic decisions around the resourcing needed to facilitate the suggested changes. It is important to outline here that if there are a large number of resource heavy suggestions then BUCS will need to consult with sports directly and make decisions around feasibility. It may well be the case that some suggestions will not be resourced and progressed immediately. Reward and Recognition Once the competition structure is reflective of the needs and wants of student-athletes and the membership, there will be an opportunity to review the reward and recognition system that is applied to BUCS sport. This will obviously include the current BUCS Points system. There is clearly no way to know how this will look at present, as we do not yet know how the competition framework itself will look. There may also be opportunities to develop reward and recognition beyond national rankings, for example creating regional league tables, sport specific league tables or rankings based on the variety of sports engaged with. These are all just ideas at the moment, but as we move into a strategic consultation narrative with sports and the membership, BUCS is open to considering all possibilities. BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS Page 2 of 11

3 Timescales The timelines associated with outlining the possible development opportunities that may emerge from this review are key, as it is recognised that a balance needs to be struck between the facilitation of change and the opportunity for members to align themselves with it. It is anticipated that little change will be realised within the season, with the majority of developments beginning to take shape from the start of season. Insight and learning from programmes such as BUCS Super Rugby have equipped the organisation with a blueprint to better understand the wider ramifications of competition development, and have influenced the framework applied to considering change to better encapsulate these. As a membership organisation, the consultation piece that underpins any anticipated future decision making needs to be allocated the time it requires, hence the season provides an opportunity through which BUCS can fully engage with its members to shape programmes appropriately. The organisation also needs this period to fully align its resources alongside the possible outcomes of the review, to ensure that there is capacity to deliver what is sought from both sports and the membership. Briefing Day The BUCS Sport Review Briefing Day you have been invited to attend next Tuesday (22 May) will further outline the work detailed in this document, and provide context on how the process will move forwards over the next few months. The sessions on the day will be interactive and thought provoking, and there will be ample opportunity to ask questions about the review framework. If you have any questions or queries ahead of the day, then please contact Jenny Morris BUCS Senior Sport Manager. BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS Page 3 of 11

4 BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS Sport Review Framework The framework below is intended to guide National Governing Bodies and BUCS Sport Advisory Groups to assess their current provision of sport competition against the studentathlete profiles that have been identified. For sports not currently within the BUCS Competitions Programme, the framework provides an opportunity to demonstrate current demand and engagement outside of BUCS. BUCS has a mission to provide competitive opportunities that are appropriate for all types of student-athlete, from those seeking flexible low-commitment outlets to those seeking high performance environments. As outlined in the Briefing Document, the student-athlete profiles are derived from the Big BUCS Survey 2017, and they define the types of experience that the student-athlete profiles are looking for. These experiences illustrate the motivational drivers behind engagement in higher (HE) sporting offers, and are based on three main components: ambition, commitment and priority. Student-Athlete Profiles Type Ambition Commitment Prioritisation 5 Success within Elite Sport. Depending on the sport in question, this could mean: International Representation, a Professional Contract, or High Performance National Competition/NGB Pathway. Highest levels of commitment to both personal and team performance development. Strong desire to engage with supplementary training environments, such as: strength and conditioning, performance analysis, physiotherapy and sport rehabilitation treatment. No issues with lengthy time and travel commitment. Cost unlikely to be a factor for consideration when establishing commitment to participate. Sporting performance is a very high priority, possibly ahead of most other commitments. BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS: THE FRAMEWORK Page 4 of 11

5 Student-Athlete Profiles Type Ambition Commitment Prioritisation 4 Success within a Highly Competitive/Performance Focused Environment. Depending on the sport in question, this could mean: NGB Talent Pathway Entry, Semi Professional Contract, National Leagues, and/or National and Premier Tiers of BUCS. High levels of commitment to performance advancement. Desire to engage with supplementary training environments. However, focus may sway more towards the outcome of performance (winning) rather than personal development for future performance. Minimal issues with committing long periods of time to training or lengthy travel associated with fixtures. Cost less likely to be a factor for consideration when establishing commitment to participate. Will generally prioritise sport participation ahead of most other commitments. Success within a Competitive Sporting Environment. Seasonally based commitment : will readily commit to competing and trying to personally improve within a competitive season. 3 Very likely to consistently engage with regular competitive opportunities. May be interested in advancing within a sport to compete at the highest tier possible both within and outside HE sport, however focus may be isolated to simply succeeding within current competition (e.g. winning the league). Competitive outcome very likely to be a stronger factor compared to personal performance development. Generally little interest in engaging with supplementary training environments. Some issues with lengthy travel. Would prefer to strike a balance between competing and other personal commitments. Cost could be a factor for consideration when establishing commitment to participate. May prioritise competing ahead of other commitments/interests. Likely to balance prioritisation of sport against wider commitments. BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS: THE FRAMEWORK Page 5 of 11

6 Student-Athlete Profiles Type Ambition Commitment Prioritisation 2 Engagement with recreational sporting environments. Motivational factors more likely to be focused around: enjoyment, experience, and socialisation. There may still be ambition to experience a competitive environment, however the driver for this is quality of experience rather than performance related. Unlikely to be to committed to advancing through competitive environments. Instead are more likely to seek enjoyable opportunities to compete on a regular to intermittent basis. Appropriateness of opportunity very important, as a Type 2 participant would be likely to disengage quickly if the offer is not right. Regular issues with lengthy travel, preference would be to remain quite local to engage with competitive opportunities. Cost would be a factor for consideration when establishing commitment to participate. Might prioritise ahead of other commitments, but generally unlikely. The offer must suit the individual s motivation and can become quickly deprioritised. 1 Participation in sport on a flexible basis. Motivational factors very likely to be focused around: enjoyment, experience, and socialisation. Minimal/no level of commitment to advancement. Seeking opportunities that offer ad-hoc or intermittent competition, making it easier to flexibly commit to participation. Issues with travel, strong preference for localised opportunities. Unlikely to prioritise ahead of other commitments. Little ambition to experience a highly competitive environment. Cost very much a factor for consideration when establishing commitment to participate. BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS: THE FRAMEWORK Page 6 of 11

7 UTILISING THE FRAMEWORK Detailed below are the four stages of the Sport Review Framework. Each stage should be addressed consecutively, as each is very much dependent on the last. Appendix A is a blank version of the templates below. Stage 1: Review Current Provision (Red Columns) Using the student-athlete profile definitions provided, identify how each level of offer within the existing playing structures would be best categorised in its current format. For event based competition, this may be each type of discipline or each type of competition category (e.g. novice to elite). The categorisation should be based on what types of student-athlete are currently participating within that offer. A separate table should be completed for each gender. Stage 2: Quantify Types of Student-Athlete (Orange Columns) Once the types of student-athlete at each level of the structure have been identified, then quantify the percentage of each type. Any relevant data that is pertinent can be used to do this, including the recent BUCS Participation Survey Data (this data will be supplied on 22 May). Stage 3: Assess Current Offer (Maroon Column) Using your knowledge and expertise, qualitatively assess whether each level is providing the appropriate offer for the types of student-athlete within it. Please refer back to the ambition, commitment and prioritisation element for each student-athlete type to do this. For example: does a level have a majority of Type 2 student-athletes, individuals who would prefer to play games on a more flexible and localised basis, who are being required to travel great distances every Wednesday to play fixtures? Therefore, it should be assessed that currently the competition offer is not completely appropriate to the needs of the student-athletes. BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS: THE FRAMEWORK Page 7 of 11

8 Below is an example for Women s Dodgeball a league based sport (Appendix B is an example of an event based sport): Current Competition Offers Student-Athlete Type Percentage per Type Is the offer currently being provided appropriate? Premier League Y Y There could be an opportunity to look at developing a more competitive top Tier, perhaps a National League structure to facilitate the needs of the Type 5 student-athletes. Tier 1 Y Y Y Acknowledging that some teams will include Type 3 and 2 players as part of their squads, on the whole Tier 1 is appropriate for the majority of student-athletes competing within it. Tier 2 Y Y Tier 2 involves quite a lot of travel, therefore if the majority of student-athletes within this Tier are Type 2s then we need to look at the regional structures for the leagues to help reduce travel. Tier 3 Y Y Tier 3 is quite a localised competition during the league season, however we may need to assess whether the current cup competition that spreads much further geographically is appropriate. Tier 4 Y Y Y On the whole yes, but if we believe there is a large number of Type 1 student-athletes in this competition, is there a more flexible offer we can develop that does not include a weekly commitment to fixtures. Perhaps round-robin formats on weekends or cluster tournament events on set dates? BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS: THE FRAMEWORK Page 8 of 11

9 Stage 4: Opportunities If within Stage 3 of the Framework, you have identified any gaps in provision or opportunities which you believe need to be investigated further to better align the current competition offer with the student-athletes profiles, then please utilise Stage 4 to summarise by answering the questions below. The answers to these questions will be utilised by BUCS to update and consult its membership on the priorities and objectives for developing each sport within the BUCS Competition Programme. Continuation of the example for Women s Dodgeball: Question Answer Briefly summarise the opportunity you have identified: In Dodgeball, there is an opportunity to develop a more localised offer in Tiers 2-4 to cater for both Type 2 and Type 1 student-athletes. Who are the key stakeholders that would support developing your proposed opportunity? What kind of support would be provided? Dodgeball UK, BUCS Dodgeball SAG, UK Sport. The support would take on various forms. There would be a dedicated Dodgeball UK staff member leading on the development, linking through the network of regional development officers working with University clubs. What are the perceived benefits to student-athletes? Reduction in travel time and cost to compete. Less impact on academic commitments, hence a potential increased engagement with the competition offer. Does this opportunity impact on any external pathway or competitive opportunity outside of BUCS? The Dodgeball UK National League would not be affected by this change, but there would be a recognisable link to the localised recreational programmes currently being driven by Dodgeball UK, by providing a competitive inter-university offer. What would be your proposed timeline for the development of the opportunity? We would like to undertake a consultation with teams and institutions during the season, with a proposal to effect the change in September 2019 if the idea is supported by BUCS. Would this opportunity have a resource implication? Initially, resource (mainly staff time) would be needed to support the consultation with teams and institutions. However, the SAG and NGB would lead on this work, and undertake the majority of feedback collection. Making Tiers 2-4 more localised should not involve long-term financial investment of any kind, as once the change has occurred the competition will operate in the traditional league format and continue to be administered by the BUCS Office, with support from the SAG and NGB. BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS: THE FRAMEWORK Page 9 of 11

10 Appendix A - Building Better Competitions Sport Review Framework BLANK Sport: Completed by: Date:.. Current Competition Offers Student-Athlete Type Percentage per Type Is the offer currently being provided appropriate? Question Answer Briefly summarise the opportunity you have identified: Who are the key stakeholders that would support developing your proposed opportunity? What kind of support would be provided? What are the perceived benefits to student-athletes? Does this opportunity impact on any external pathway or competitive opportunity outside of BUCS? What would be your proposed timeline for the development of the opportunity? Would this opportunity have a resource implication? BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS: THE FRAMEWORK Page 10 of 11

11 Appendix B - Building Better Competitions Sport Review Framework Event based sport example Example: Canoe please note this is an example only and is not based on any research or insight Current Competition Offers Student-Athlete Type Percentage per Type Is the offer currently being provided appropriate? BUCS WWR Championships Y Y Y Y The way the event is currently structured offers a competitive opportunity for all types of paddler. However the type of course used may not provide the right kind of experience for Type 2 student-athletes, however currently the BUCS National Championships is the only offer available. BUCS Slalom Championships Y Y Y Y The way the event is currently structured offers an appropriate competitive opportunity for all types of paddler. British Canoe Sprint Competition Y Y Y Y Y This discipline is not currently offered within the BUCS Competition Framework; however, it provides a much more accessible opportunity for Type 2 student-athletes. British Canoe currently offer a national student championships, and clubs often use this event as an introductory event for new paddlers. There is also a higher percentage of elite student-athlete paddlers within the Sprint discipline, and providing a BUCS Competition would link the current NGB pathway with HE. BUILDING BETTER COMPETITIONS: THE FRAMEWORK Page 11 of 11