Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[jcarter7669]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[QUOTE=Osorojo;4788630]

I thought we are talking about college hockey?


"Yes it happens, there are programs with less then stellar academic records. . ."

Translation: "less than stellar" = cheating


The examples you dismiss as inconsequential are not schools with "less than
stellar academic programs" - they are (were) willful cheaters. Reasonable people will no sooner dismiss academic cheating by winning programs than they will dismiss athletic cheating by winning programs.

Cheaters have won games and championships and will continue to do so at at greater rate unless oversight is increased, cheating is exposed, and significant penalties are enforced. Only AFTER coaches, alumni, and college officials are convinced that the risk of discovery, publicity, and financial loss excedes the benefits of cheating will assaults on academic standards by athletic programs decrease.

From reading sports news it's apparent that several coaches, alums, and college officials of winning athletic programs still think it's worth the risk to cheat. The attitude that cheaters are simply "less than stellar" certainly does not discourage these coaches, alums, fans, and officials. Of course they may be rabid, raving maniacs unable to percieve the risks which cheating brings to their school.

I dissmissed them because they AREN'T HOCKEY PROGRAMS. We are talking about college hockey. Got it, hockey. You know with sticks, skates and a little rubber disk.

If you want to talk about college football programs go find a ****ing college football thread. Jeez.......

And if you are going to continue this cheating ****, then you had better start backing it up with actual facts before you get cited for slander. And remember, this is a HOCKEY discussion board. If you want to other sports go somewhere else.

[komey1]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

We get that it HAS/DOES happen in other sports. And of course there IS the potential for problems. However, it does not appear that it is happening. Are there a multitude of programs that are cheating? I don't think there are.

[bronconick]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Good god, this is absurd.

Corruption, cheating, thievery, and whatever else you're talking about takes place when money gets involved. The more money, the more cheating.

The amount of money involved in college hockey is small, so the amount of crap going on is equally small. The TV ratings are unmeasurable, there's no national TV package, and I have my doubts that the TV games and packages that are shown are making much even for schools like Minnesota.

Hell, this guy writing about the odds for this year's tournament in Vegas apparently can read the board on the odds, but can't read a bracket since he has North Dakota facing Michigan in the 1st round. You'll excuse me if I don't buy the possibility of a lot of point shaving scandals in a sport where 1 "point" a period is about average, and the money placed on games is 1/1,000,000th or less of what's being put on some other NCAA sporting event going on at the same time.

I'm sure there's a few shady things going on, especially if a player who does get caught by his coach can conveniently head off to Major Juniors at semester if he hates class or some alumni let him eat a sandwich without paying. But this being your "crusade" is the real world equivalent to telling people to stop golfing because golf balls are made from oil and we're using too much oil.

Go find a political board and rant about corruption, or failing that, a fan board of the Alabama Crimson Tide.

[Patman]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Octopus...

I should be ignoring you... but do you have ANY evidence that UConn has falsified grades or academic records.

Let me say that I've TAed in a fail class (Statistics 1000/1100Q) and I've personally entered in grades for students at the end of the semester.

Produce it or shut your pile hole.

----

I believe that UConn mens basketball skirts the rules and breaks some of them. Jim Calhoun is a scumbag and has recently admitted to several NCAA violations. What I will not let you do is lie.

[Osorojo]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

We get that it HAS/DOES happen in other sports. And of course there IS the potential for problems. However, it does not appear that it is happening. Are there a multitude of programs that are cheating? I don't think there are.

The NCAA basically eliminated college entrance requirements for athletes in 2009 when it reduced minimum SAT scores for college athletes to 400 (this includes hockey recruits). Do you realize what an SAT of 400 indicates? This rule change guarantees that many (not all) recruits (in all sports) who are gifted athletes will be forced to cheat, since they are unprepared and/or unable to meet the academic standards which responsible college faculties will continue to enforce.

www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/02
http://www.knightcommission.org/inde...iew=article&id
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...1/ai_n9165977/
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...advisers_N.htm

In addition, the Drake Group has published several expressions of concern regarding college athletics (which might include hockey) and academic standards.

To its credit, the NCAA has accused UCon's coach Calhoun of "failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance" - a charge which indicates complicity by UCon administrators - or reveals they don't know (or care) what the hell's going on in their university.

I refuse to buy into the absurd excuse that college hockey is not and can not be influenced or victimized by the mindset, rules, or actions of other college sports or their governing body.

As for the "we're talking about hockey" evasion: I don't give much of a rat about big time college football or big time college basketball. I know how their recruitment and "college studies" are conducted. I'll watch the pros instead - much more legitimate, much better regulated. I enjoy college hockey, and have done so since I watched the first home game of Paul Patton's team. I'm afraid that the attitude and actions of other college sports programs are corrupting college hockey, and I'm convinced that ignorance is NOT bliss - in either college or college hockey.

[jcarter7669]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

I refuse to buy into the absurd excuse that college hockey is not and can not be influenced or victimized by the mindset, rules, or actions of other college sports or their governing body.

ADD boy, listen carefully. No one is saying or has said that college hockey can not be influenced in a manner as has been the case with other college sports. The argument is that it isn't a problem at the current time. It certainly could become a problem, but currently there are few people that thing it is a problem now, you being the only one I am aware of.

As for the "we're talking about hockey" evasion: I don't give much of a rat about big time college football or big time college basketball. I know how their recruitment and "college studies" are conducted. I'm afraid that the attitude and actions of other college sports programs are corrupting college hockey, and I'm convinced that ignorance is NOT bliss - in either college or college hockey.

"As for the "we're talking about hockey" evasion"

How is that an evasion. YOU are the one making the argument for college hockey and yet every shred of fact you bring up has to do with someother sport. You can't say that the NHL is viable because the NFL is doing great? They are separate thing. Make your arguments based on college hockey and you won't keep going through this. Ignorance may not be bliss, but delusion isn't reality either. The hair thin thread that holds your arguments together is astounding. With that type of logic you are a shoo in for President, or at the very least a Senator. And judging from past criteria maybe even a Nobel Peace Prize.

[Osorojo]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

ADD boy, listen carefully. No one is saying or has said that college hockey can not be influenced in a manner as has been the case with other college sports. The argument is that it isn't a problem at the current time. It certainly could become a problem, but currently there are few people that thing it is a problem now, you being the only one I am aware of.


"As for the "we're talking about hockey" evasion"

How is that an evasion. YOU are the one making the argument for college hockey and yet every shred of fact you bring up has to do with someother sport. You can't say that the NHL is viable because the NFL is doing great? They are separate thing. Make your arguments based on college hockey and you won't keep going through this. Ignorance may not be bliss, but delusion isn't reality either. The hair thin thread that holds your arguments together is astounding. With that type of logic you are a shoo in for President, or at the very least a Senator. And judging from past criteria maybe even a Nobel Peace Prize.

Let me try to discover where I went so wrong.

First, the facts:
(1)The NCAA has lowered the entrance requirements for any and all college athletes to an SAT score of 400 (?!). Is this correct?

(2) There is a pool of skilled, young hockey players out there who can not honestly achieve an SAT score much higher than 400.
Is this correct?

Next, my conclusions:

(1) There are some college HOCKEY programs which will avidly recruit talented hockey players with Sat scores nearing the 400 mark.
Is that correct?

(2) College students, including hockey players, with SAT scores in the 400's are unlikely to succeed in all but the worst academic colleges, unless they cheat.
Is that correct?

(3) Colleges which recruit and admit athletes (including hockey players) with SAT scores nearing 400 have little to do with compensatory education and a lot to do with trashing their own academic standards and reputation.

Last, a question. If you can provide a cogent answer to this one, I'LL SHUT UP!:

If a Division I hockey school refuses to recruit a hockey player who can't skate backwards why should a reputable college admit anybody with an SAT nearing 400?

P.S. - Is NOW the "current time?"

[LynahFan]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Let me try to discover where I went so wrong.

First, the facts:
(1)The NCAA has lowered the entrance requirements for any and all college athletes to an SAT score of 400 (?!). Is this correct?

Nope - wow, not off to a good start here. The NCAA has lowered the entrance requirement to 400 only for college athletes who have a 3.55 high school GPA - not "any and all."

(2) There is a pool of skilled, young hockey players out there who can not honestly achieve an SAT score much higher than 400.
Is this correct?

Objection. Supposition, your honor.

Show us some data. I honestly doubt there are too many college hockey prospects that have to cheat to get a 400.

Next, my conclusions:

(1) There are some college HOCKEY programs which will avidly recruit talented hockey players with Sat scores nearing the 400 mark.
Is that correct?

I don't believe that for one second. I think every single D-1 hockey coach would be very concerned and weigh very carefully the merits of recruiting a 400-scorer. I don't think there's a single program out there that would "avidly recruit" any such prospect, and certainly not an entire locker room full.

(2) College students, including hockey players, with SAT scores in the 400's are unlikely to succeed in all but the worst academic colleges, unless they cheat.
Is that correct?

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, when those same players had 3.5 GPAs in high school.

(3) Colleges which recruit and admit athletes (including hockey players) with SAT scores nearing 400 have little to do with compensatory education and a lot to do with trashing their own academic standards and reputation.

Yeah, Duke and Stanford have really trashed their academic reputations with all those low performing athletes. That is, it's quite possible for a school to have strong academic standards and reputation while simultaneously having athletes who perform at much lower standards than the general student population. Do 20 hockey players out of a student body of hundreds or thousands really spoil the whole barrel?

Last, a question. If you can provide a cogent answer to this one, I'LL SHUT UP!:

Yeah, I'm not buying this one, either.

If a Division I hockey school refuses to recruit a hockey player who can't skate backwards why should a reputable college admit anybody with an SAT nearing 400?

Because there's more to putting together a quality student body than simply picking the applicants who have the highest test scores. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as a college application and no need to participate in any non-academic pursuits - just write your SAT score on a postcard and send it in.

Gee, that was tough.

[Osorojo]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Nope - wow, not off to a good start here. The NCAA has lowered the entrance requirement to 400 only for college athletes who have a 3.55 high school GPA - not "any and all."


Objection. Supposition, your honor.

Show us some data. I honestly doubt there are too many college hockey prospects that have to cheat to get a 400.


Gee, that was tough

It's painfully obvious that LynahFan hasn't the foggiest idea of what an SAT score of 400 indicates: the tested individual did not answer a single question correctly.

An SAT score of "400" translates to a ZERO, zip, zilch, rien, nada, bupkiss. A 400 indicates that someone signed his/her name or made his/her mark, or someone did it for them - nothing more.

It's similary apparent that LynahFan and his ilk ignore irate parents and citizens who are concerned about the level of K-12 education in America today. If colleges approve of, recruit, and award scholarships to students with qualifying test scores of ZERO what does a 3.5 high school GPA signify?

Attitudes toward and practices of the NCAA and too many college athletic programs, including some hockey programs and hockey fans, are hostile toward education. For proof, see above; one of many defending ZERO test scores.

If you have the curiosity and the courage to learn what is actually going on
between academics and college sports (including hockey) please read the article cited below:

http://espn.go.com/columns/farrey_tom/1453693.html

[Osorojo]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[QUOTE=LynahFan;4790293]


"Because there's more to putting together a quality student body than simply picking the applicants who have the highest test scores." [Quote]

The goal of colleges and universities is education, not "putting together a quality student body," if doing so requires admitting and providing scholarships to applicants who lack either the wits or the inclination to answer a SINGLE question on a qualifying exam. The results of such soft-headed thinking can be seen in today's (05/03) news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100602/ts_csm/304688

The reputation of American colleges and universities for producing graduates of academic excellence is declining in the rest of the world. I can identify attitudes, policies, and people who expedite this decline.

Gee, that was easy.

[LynahFan]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

It's painfully obvious that LynahFan hasn't the foggiest idea of what an SAT score of 400 indicates: the tested individual did not answer a single question correctly.

An SAT score of "400" translates to a ZERO, zip, zilch, rien, nada, bupkiss. A 400 indicates that someone signed his/her name or made his/her mark, or someone did it for them - nothing more.

Right - as a matter of fact, I did know that. I've known that since around 1984, when my older brother took the PSAT for the first time. The "400 requirement" basically means that high school students with good enough GPAs don't have to take the test. Nobody is denying that or covering it up. So much for your gotcha moment.

The real question is, why do YOU think there are loads of blue chip hockey prospects out there who would need to cheat to "score much higher than a 400?"

2) There is a pool of skilled, young hockey players out there who can not honestly achieve an SAT score much higher than 400.

Where are all these dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks prospects who need to cheat to score higher than 400? And how many of them are actually interested in going to college (and dealing with the academics) when there's another very well-proven path for them to take to the NHL?

The 400 rule is for basketball and football, pure and simple. Those are the sports where 99.9% of athletes have to get into college to get to the pros, so that necessarily includes the dumbest ones, too. In hockey, there is a thriving alternative to college that has an even better track record than the NCAA for putting players in the NHL. Why would anyone who struggles to get a 500 SAT even WANT to play college hockey?

This is so NOT a problem for college hockey.

[LynahFan]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

"Because there's more to putting together a quality student body than simply picking the applicants who have the highest test scores."

The goal of colleges and universities is education, not "putting together a quality student body," if doing so requires admitting and providing scholarships to applicants who lack either the wits or the inclination to answer a SINGLE question on a qualifying exam. The results of such soft-headed thinking can be seen in today's (05/03) news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100602/ts_csm/304688

The reputation of American colleges and universities for producing graduates of academic excellence is declining in the rest of the world. I can identify attitudes, policies, and people who expedite this decline.

Gee, that was easy.

That article doesn't make any sense at all. Here's an amazingly qualified candidate who can't find a job at an American university, so he had to go teach overseas. Guess what? That means American universities were hiring people better than this guy.

Another point in the article: as foreign universities get better, the best students stay home for school rather than coming to the US. How exactly is that caused by 58 American universities (out of the 4500+ in the US) recruiting 20 hockey players each?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

With football and basketball, things seem different from hockey because there isn't a readily available alternative for college-aged people to play sports but have difficulty with learning, unlike Major Juniors in Canada. Obviously there are some alternatives overseas, but distance and amount of available slots open creates an issue. Sure, you might see a player come out of high school or darn close to it (LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, don't know if any football players fit the bill), but if there was a major juniors equivalent for football or basketball, I think we would see a lot of players trying to go that route rather than college, and that would help weed out the issues with educational qualifications.

[TimU]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Last, a question. If you can provide a cogent answer to this one, I'LL SHUT UP!:

If a Division I hockey school refuses to recruit a hockey player who can't skate backwards why should a reputable college admit anybody with an SAT nearing 400?

Because there's more to putting together a quality student body than simply picking the applicants who have the highest test scores. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as a college application and no need to participate in any non-academic pursuits - just write your SAT score on a postcard and send it in.

Whoo hoo!

Glad to know you'll be shutting up now.

If you decide to go back on your word, I'm still waiting for you to show me where one single person - other than yourself - said that "college academic standards have been, are, and will remain exempt from corruption by college athletics, including college hockey."

[jcarter7669]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Let me try to discover where I went so wrong.

First, the facts:
(1)The NCAA has lowered the entrance requirements for any and all college athletes to an SAT score of 400 (?!). Is this correct?

(2) There is a pool of skilled, young hockey players out there who can not honestly achieve an SAT score much higher than 400.
Is this correct?

Next, my conclusions:

(1) There are some college HOCKEY programs which will avidly recruit talented hockey players with Sat scores nearing the 400 mark.
Is that correct?

(2) College students, including hockey players, with SAT scores in the 400's are unlikely to succeed in all but the worst academic colleges, unless they cheat.
Is that correct?

(3) Colleges which recruit and admit athletes (including hockey players) with SAT scores nearing 400 have little to do with compensatory education and a lot to do with trashing their own academic standards and reputation.

Last, a question. If you can provide a cogent answer to this one, I'LL SHUT UP!:

If a Division I hockey school refuses to recruit a hockey player who can't skate backwards why should a reputable college admit anybody with an SAT nearing 400?

P.S. - Is NOW the "current time?"

The biggest issue I have with this is you are inferring a student's success rate and to SAT scores and then linking this to corruption, cheating and overall lack of quality students. Why not stop looking at the entrance requirement and look at the GSR, in other words not how they start but how they finish? Might it be because the GSR rates don't actually back up your inferences. With the exception of 2-3 programs out of 58, hockey student atheletes maintain a GSR that is equal to or better then that of the general student body. That same student body that enters school with a higher SAT scores.


Nice talking to you, now keep to your word and shut up