The NCAA consultation process is winding along its merry way, and so far, students have been making their voices heard as much as they normally do at Thunderbird games. Which is to say they’re not. The first of three open houses allowing for the broader community to state their views on the proposed move to the NCAA was poorly attended. With only two more open houses left before the ending of the consultation period on October 22, there hasn’t been a real debate on campus about what joining the lucrative and American-based association would mean for UBC. And that’s a shame.

A new SUB, our U-Pass, and the fate of the Knoll managed to galvanize students in the past couple of years, but moving to the NCAA could easily have an even larger impact than any of these developments. Long-term, a move to the NCAA might massively boost UBC’s prestige, be the missing link in growing community on campus, and make this university’s dream of being the Stanford of Canada a reality. Or (as we’re inclined to think), it could mean massive increases in the already sizable $207 athletic fee, no chance of an affordable gym in the foreseeable future, and do precious little to boost pride on a campus where lots of studying and little student housing mean thousands of empty seats at War Memorial Gym on any given night.

Now, “some” (read: athletes) might say that this is just a move to Division II, that we could move back to the CIS in a blink of an eye, and this is just about allowing top Canadian athletes to stay in Canada. This is a baloney attempt to make students think this is a low-risk endeavour they don’t need to pay attention to. If we do move to NCAA, UBC will be forced to temporarily destroy our hockey program so that our players are NCAA-eligible (the majority of them currently aren’t, having played in the CHL), invest millions for full ride scholarships and go through an American-based accreditation process and American-centred regulations and surveys each year. The pressure to move to Division I, which has been Athletic Director Bob Philip’s goal for nearly a decade, will be enormous. Division II isn’t a feasible option long-term, so if UBC rejects a move to Division I when the proposal inevitably comes, moving back to the CIS would be a huge embarrassment. The debate needs to happen now. So where are the students?

You would think the AMS might want to step in at this point, and play a role over the future of athletics at UBC. After all, UBC students already pay a lot for athletic fees and an eight-month gym membership, and you would think the AMS could tap into that anger. After all, UBC students have a history in the development of athletics on campus, having paid for the building of the War Memorial Gym, Aquatic Centre, and Student Recreation Centre. And President Michael Duncan was elected on a platform of getting a free gym for students, and making accessible recreation for students a top priority for athletics.

But so far, while Duncan has had strong words about his concerns with the process, the actual response from the AMS has been tepid. An official consultation with students on the state of athletics has been promised. A resolution against moving to the NCAA until athletic fees are addressed is likely but the consultation process happening right now is an amazing opportunity for students to hold leverage over the future of athletics. If the AMS plays its cards right, the grievances students have with paying a $207 fee that gets them diddly squat can be addressed—not after we move to the NCAA and another five facilities are built, but right now. The consultation ends in two weeks though, at which point the boat will have sailed on students having a voice on the fundamental direction of athletics at UBC for the foreseeable future.

Duncan and the AMS Executives have tended to be—like their predecessors since the abolition of slates on campus: fairly non-partisan, pragmatic and preferring slow progressive compromise over public battles. Which is all well and good and most of the time, it’s for the better. But sometimes, when the stakes are high, and the deadline is tight, you have to wage a public battle and use the bully pulpit of representing students to have your voice counted. The review committee (which has had all relevant information provided to them by UBC Athletics) has come out with a biased and factually outdated consultation guide. They have held multiple focus groups and stakeholder meetings with donors and athletes, but none with ordinary students. They have been perfectly willing to allow UBC Athletics to push coaches and players to sign feedback forms, so that feedback to the change is positively skewed. If the AMS is collectively against this move, which has appeared to be the case, they have thus far brought a knife to a gun fight.

AMS Council has, as review committee co-chair Marie Earl admitted, “a great deal of leverage” on getting what it wants out of this NCAA consultation process. Seven months into their term, the executive hasn’t created much of a legacy for itself. Its largest accomplishments to date have been resisting the urge to take sides after the protests and arrests of KnollAid 2.0 and shepherding through the SUB Renew process from Stage 3 to Stage 4 (yes, we just made up those numbers). In the showdown for students to have a voice in the future of UBC Athletics, we’ve reached the two-minute warning. Can the AMS pull off a game-winning drive?