The 2026 qualification structure is not a new format, and it is important to look at the development of the McTavish Cup in its proper context.
The current qualification model has been in place since 2024. It was not created in 2026 to remove a qualification position from British Columbia or to provide one to Quebec.
The 2022 and 2023 Championships also need to be considered in the context of where the CUMRC was at that time. Both Championships were being planned in the immediate post-COVID period, when there was considerable uncertainty around university sport, travel, participation and financial capacity.
In 2022, UBC was the host. At that stage, the CUMRC was still navigating the return to competition and could not assume that every region would be able to fill an allocated berth. There was a legitimate concern about creating a qualification position that a region or program might ultimately be unable to fulfil. The priority was to ensure that the Championship could actually be delivered with the teams that qualified.
That same reality continued into 2023. The decision to maintain three BC positions was adopted after RSEQ was unable to fill a second Championship berth. There were numerous berth proposals in early 2023 that were put forth that included three BC positions, however, approval only came after we were notified that RSEQ was unable to fill a second berth position. The decision to give BC three berths was a practical decision based on participation and the circumstances of the time, not a determination that British Columbia was permanently entitled to three positions.
The 2023 Championship was therefore a unique point in the development of the CUMRC. It was still emerging from the disruption of COVID-19 and establishing what a sustainable qualification structure should look like. The Championship had been awarded to Trinity Western University, including its host position, in early 2022, at a time when the CUMRC had only completed one post-COVID Championship.
The fact that UBC and UVic finished first and second in that particular Championship does not establish a permanent entitlement for those programs, or for any region, to receive the same qualification positions every year.
From its beginning, the CUMRC has been built around national and regional representation. The Championship regulations provide for representation from all five regions: BC, Prairies, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic. The purpose is not simply to select the eight strongest teams in isolation, nor is it to guarantee a fixed number of berths to individual universities. It is to create a Championship with meaningful regional pathways while also recognizing competitive strength.
Regional competition is an important part of that process. A team does not establish that it is one of the best teams in the country independently of its conference competition. The strongest conferences can earn additional representation because the depth of competition within those regions demonstrates that their runner-up or other qualifying teams are capable of competing at the McTavish Cup.
This was reflected in 2024, when the OUA and RSEQ were each allocated two Championship positions. Those additional berths were not simply awarded based on reputation. They reflected the competitive strength demonstrated within those regions.
The same principle has applied to British Columbia. When BC has two allocated positions and a BC university is the host, the host receives its automatic host berth and the remaining regional berth goes through the regional qualification process. In 2026, Trinity Western University is the host. UBC and UVic are therefore competing for the available BC regional berth. That is not a rule introduced in 2026. It is part of the qualification model that has been in place since 2024.
There is also a practical reason for having a defined and repeatable process. There is no perfect way to compare university rugby teams from across the country. Programs have different levels of funding, facilities, coaching resources, travel demands, competition schedules and player development environments. There is no national ranking system that can objectively establish that the second-place team in one region is definitively stronger than the second-place team in another.
Without a defined qualification process, those decisions become increasingly subjective. The CUMRC believes programs deserve to know the pathway they are competing through and to have confidence that the criteria will not change simply because the competitive landscape looks different in a particular year.
That stability matters for development. The CUMRC cannot make short-term changes to the qualification structure every time a result, ranking or particular Championship outcome creates pressure to do so. A Championship structure needs to be stable enough for universities, coaches and athletes to plan around it and invest in their programs over multiple seasons.
The CUMRC also recognizes that there are genuine competitive disparities across the country. There can be significant score differentials between developing programs and established, fully funded university programs. Those results should not be ignored or explained away.
But the answer to that disparity is not to remove developing programs from the McTavish Cup.
The answer is to create greater parity.
Travel is one example. A developing program that lands at 1:00 a.m. and is expected to play at 11:00 a.m. is not entering the same competitive environment as a program with the resources to travel, recover and prepare appropriately. If the objective is to raise the standard of university men’s rugby across Canada, we need to address those structural differences rather than use the resulting score differentials as a reason to concentrate opportunities among a small number of established programs.
The CUMRC has heard directly from athletes and coaches in the Prairies and Atlantic regions about the impact that a direct regional berth has had on their programs. Those pathways have changed the level of focus, investment and ambition around university men’s rugby in those regions. Providing a meaningful opportunity to compete at the McTavish Cup gives programs something tangible to build toward.
That is development.
A regional pathway to the McTavish Cup also creates something that is critical to the long-term growth of university men’s rugby: leverage for programs to secure investment.
University athletic departments have limited resources and must make decisions about where to invest in sport. It is difficult for a program to make a compelling case for increased operating, coaching or travel funding if there is no meaningful pathway from its region to the McTavish Cup. A guaranteed regional pathway gives athletes, coaches and program leaders something tangible to build toward and a stronger case to take to their athletic departments and university leadership when asking for the resources required to compete.
The same principle applies to the Championship itself. A competition that consistently draws its participants from only a small number of provinces risks becoming less representative of Canadian university men’s rugby. Broad regional representation strengthens the identity of the McTavish Cup as a truly Canadian event and makes the Championship more meaningful to sponsors, rugby organizations and potential funding partners across the country.
If the objective is to grow university men’s rugby nationally, we need programs in every region to see a realistic pathway to the McTavish Cup. That pathway creates incentive for investment. Investment creates better programs. Better programs create greater competitive depth. Greater competitive depth ultimately raises the standard of the Championship itself.
If we want university men’s rugby in Canada to become stronger, the goal should be to raise the level across the country, not simply to raise a handful of programs to a level that becomes increasingly unattainable for everyone else.
That requires investment. Universities, rugby organizations, sponsors and supporters who want to see greater competitiveness nationally have an opportunity to contribute to that development through funding, travel support, facilities, coaching, athlete development and other resources. Reallocating Championship berths is not a substitute for investing in the programs and regions that need support.
It is also important to look at the competitive record rather than relying on historical reputation. Respectfully, only one BC program has finished in the top three in two of the last five Championships, and no BC program has finished in the top two in the last two Championships.
BC has a strong history in Canadian university men’s rugby, and that history deserves recognition. But recent results demonstrate that competitive strength is changing nationally. That is precisely why a qualification structure needs to be based on current, repeatable criteria rather than an assumption that past success should guarantee future berths.
The CUMRC also welcomes constructive alternatives. If individuals or programs believe there is a better way to allocate the eight Championship positions, we encourage them to put forward a tried and tested allocation methodology that can be applied consistently across the country.
The question is not whether another model can be imagined. The question is whether there is a credible, objective and repeatable model that can fairly compare programs across five regions, account for regional depth and development, provide meaningful national representation and remain practical to administer.
We are open to those discussions and to evidence-based alternatives.
There is another part of sustainability that is often overlooked: hosting the Championship itself.
Hosting the McTavish Cup is a significant undertaking. The host is responsible for far more than providing a field. The Championship is a five-day, 12-game event, with requirements around facilities, scheduling, team practices, officials, medical personnel, game recording, media, webcast, hospitality, awards, volunteers and tournament operations.
The financial reality of hosting also matters. The CUMRC has worked deliberately to operate the Championship in a financially responsible manner. We are one of the few university championships that has been able to break even or run a modest surplus rather than requiring an ongoing financial loss to deliver the event.
That does not happen by accident. It requires significant volunteer effort, sponsorship development, careful budgeting, fundraising, host support and operational discipline.
We also need to acknowledge that the financial pressures facing universities across Canada are real. It is increasingly difficult to assume that a university will have the resources, staffing and financial capacity to host the McTavish Cup simply because it has a strong rugby program.
That is why we are already looking beyond the next Championship.
For the 2028 bid process, the CUMRC intends to include an option for the McTavish Cup to be hosted at the city level, allowing a vibrant rugby community to host the event even where the local university may not have the resources or capacity to take on the full hosting responsibility.
At the same time, the CUMRC is well into a broader project examining the Championship structure for 2028 and beyond, including how the model can remain sustainable in the face of the financial constraints being experienced by universities across Canada.
That work needs to be done properly.
Meaningful changes to a Championship structure require consultation with participating programs, universities and other major stakeholders. They require consideration of competitive balance, travel, cost, hosting capacity, development and the long-term health of university men’s rugby.
Those changes cannot responsibly be developed and implemented in response to pressure surrounding the next Championship. A Championship structure should not be rebuilt every year. Meaningful structural changes are at least a two-plus-year conversation because programs and stakeholders need time to understand, consult on and plan for the consequences.
The qualification model also recognizes that competitive strength changes over time. In 2024, for example, ÉTS won the Championship. Ottawa, despite finishing seventh at the Championship as the host, was the only team in Canada to defeat ÉTS that season. That is precisely why qualification cannot be based solely on the previous year’s Championship finish or on historical assumptions about which conferences are strongest.
The CUMRC has to make decisions based on the information available through a consistent process rather than attempting to create a perfect national comparison where the necessary data simply does not exist. The regulations therefore recognize regional results while also providing mechanisms to account for the demonstrated strength of regions.
There is also an important practical consideration. There are only eight positions available at the McTavish Cup. British Columbia currently has three university programs competing for those positions. Providing all three BC programs with automatic qualification would mean that every BC program qualifies regardless of its regional result. That would not be a defensible qualification model, particularly when other regions have significantly more programs competing for their berths.
The CUMRC has enormous respect for UBC and UVic, their history, their contribution to Canadian rugby and their record of success. That history matters. It does not, however, create an automatic entitlement to a McTavish Cup berth.
Sport evolves. Competitive strength changes. Programs develop, conferences strengthen and representation changes with it. The role of the McTavish Cup is not simply to preserve the competitive hierarchy of one particular point in time. It is also to contribute to the development of the sport nationally.
The CUMRC’s responsibility is therefore to maintain a qualification structure that is fair, repeatable, transparent and capable of supporting the development of university men’s rugby across Canada, while also ensuring that the McTavish Cup remains financially and operationally sustainable.
The 2026 structure was reviewed and reconfirmed in December 2025. It was communicated to participating programs and universities and made publicly available. It was not a decision made in 2026 to “take BC #2 and give it to QC #2.”
With only eight Championship positions available, strong teams will sometimes miss the McTavish Cup. That is an unavoidable consequence of having a Championship rather than an expanded tournament. The responsibility of the CUMRC is to ensure that the pathway to those eight positions is based on principles that can be applied consistently across regions and across years.
Future qualification structures can and should continue to be reviewed as university men’s rugby develops. Those discussions are appropriate and welcome. They should, however, be based on the actual history of the Championship, the regulations that have governed it, the competitive landscape at the time and a commitment to developing the game nationally.
The long-term objective should not be to determine which established region can secure the most berths. It should be to build a Canadian university men’s rugby Championship in which more programs are capable of competing for those berths, more communities are capable of hosting the McTavish Cup, and the event itself remains sustainable for the universities and rugby communities that make it possible.