Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

parity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: parity

    Originally posted by Osorojo View Post
    There were several more random acts of parity during the holiday tournaments. Still, it's tough to argue with Occam's* Play Razor, which argues in the truly simplest terms that since sports seasons result in a single champion there can be no parity in sports.

    * the other Occam's idiot brother, Snerdly Occam
    Are you still here?
    Code:
    As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
    College Hockey 6       College Football 0
    BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
    Originally posted by SanTropez
    May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
    Originally posted by bigblue_dl
    I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
    Originally posted by Kepler
    When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
    He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: parity

      Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
      Are you still here?
      Yup. Are you still out there somewhere?

      BTW: I really did want to read others' opinions about parity or the lack of parity among college hockey conferences and teams. I dared hope that some would venture opinions about the reasons for such parity or the lack thereof. Instead the same old same showed up again, along with the unfathomable editing policy of this forum.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: parity

        Originally posted by Osorojo View Post
        Yup. Are you still out there somewhere?

        BTW: I really did want to read others' opinions about parity or the lack of parity among college hockey conferences and teams. I dared hope that some would venture opinions about the reasons for such parity or the lack thereof. Instead the same old same showed up again, along with the unfathomable editing policy of this forum.
        I'm happy for you. I think I speak for everyone here when I say nobody gives a **** what you think. Perhaps the "'same old showed up again" because you're the same old dumbass who asks stupid questions.
        Code:
        As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
        College Hockey 6       College Football 0
        BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
        Originally posted by SanTropez
        May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
        Originally posted by bigblue_dl
        I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
        Originally posted by Kepler
        When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
        He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: parity

          Originally posted by Osorojo View Post
          Yup. Are you still out there somewhere?

          BTW: I really did want to read others' opinions about parity or the lack of parity among college hockey conferences and teams. I dared hope that some would venture opinions about the reasons for such parity or the lack thereof. Instead the same old same showed up again, along with the unfathomable editing policy of this forum.
          I don't think there's much parity in college hockey. There are about 8 programs with a realistic chance of winning national titles, and the other 50 are all hanging around hoping to be a cinderella story.

          Compare that to, say, the NFL, where it's not that uncommon for superbowl teams one year to be out of the playoffs the next, or vice versa. The Rams (1999) and Pats (2001 and 2003) won superbowls after missing the playoffs the previous years - and that's in a format where 12/32 teams make the playoffs. In college hockey, that would be the equivalent of a team jumping up from worse than 23rd place one year to win the NCAA title the next. That just does not happen.

          There are lots of structural reasons for this - the combination of the NFL salary cap plus players' ability to negotiate for "fair market value" means that it is impossible for a few teams to hoard all of the best talent. Also, with only 16 regular season games (instead of 34), there will be a much greater probability that teams will over- or under-perform from their true capability based on randomness. A bad bounce in hockey will cost you 3% of your season, while in football it is 6%.
          If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: parity

            Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
            I'm happy for you. I think I speak for everyone here when I say nobody gives a **** what you think. Perhaps the "'same old showed up again" because you're the same old dumbass who asks stupid questions.

            dxm: I have a suggestion. If you aren't interested in my thoughts why don't you stop reading my posts and responding with personal attacks instead of discussing college hockey? I'm surprised you didn't think of this simple solution to your problem by yourself.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: parity

              When nations of individuals work with bottle caps build a respected flock of eagles to make styrofoam bleed blue mayonaise, we're ****ed.
              Having a clear conscience just means you have a bad memory or you had a boring weekend.

              RIP - Kirby

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: parity

                Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
                I don't think there's much parity in college hockey. There are about 8 programs with a realistic chance of winning national titles, and the other 50 are all hanging around hoping to be a cinderella story.

                There are lots of structural reasons for this - the combination of the NFL salary cap plus players' ability to negotiate for "fair market value" means that it is impossible for a few teams to hoard all of the best talent. Also, with only 16 regular season games (instead of 34), there will be a much greater probability that teams will over- or under-perform from their true capability based on randomness. A bad bounce in hockey will cost you 3% of your season, while in football it is 6%.
                LF: You partially attribute parity in the NFL to the salary cap which makes it impossible for a few teams to hoard all of the best talent. You contrast the NFL to college hockey in all the rest of your post. It seems unlikely you would just drop in a random reference to salary caps without intending to continue your theme of contrast. Do you mean to imply that the few wealthiest programs in college hockey get to hoard all of the best talent year after year, and this is a big reason for the lack of parity you see in college hockey?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: parity

                  Originally posted by Osorojo View Post
                  LF: You partially attribute parity in the NFL to the salary cap which makes it impossible for a few teams to hoard all of the best talent. You contrast the NFL to college hockey in all the rest of your post. It seems unlikely you would just drop in a random reference to salary caps without intending to continue your theme of contrast. Do you mean to imply that the few wealthiest programs in college hockey get to hoard all of the best talent year after year, and this is a big reason for the lack of parity you see in college hockey?
                  Actually, I really had no intent to say anything other than what I said. But, to answer your question - no, I don't think that the wealthiest programs in college hockey get to hoard the best talent. I think that the most successful programs in college hockey hoard the best talent.

                  On the off chance that you genuinely don't get it, the money is only relevant when players are allowed to negotiate their contracts. Under that scenario (and without a salary cap), the richest teams could easily buy up all the best talent - see Yankees, NY. That can't happen in the NFL because of the salary cap. In college hockey, all the players get paid the same - zero. Therefore, the money doesn't make too much difference to the players. What matters MOST to the top college hockey players is a place to showcase and develop their talents and be noticed by NHL scouts. This results in a self-perpetuating procession of the same teams at the top each year, because the top players want to play for the top teams. It's pretty easy to predict who the top teams will be in hockey each year, so it's easy for the top players to choose to congregate at those schools. If it actually cost UM more $$$ to pick up a Thomas Vanek or for Maine to get a Paul Kariya, or if those types of players could bargain for a better deal from multiple schools, then you'd see the top talent spread out and there would clearly be a danger that the richest schools could buy the best talent - heck, Harvard could pick up the tab for the entire NHL payroll without blinking. As it is today, all the schools can only offer the exact same deal - a free ride. Any particular school could theoretically get the 24 best players on the roster at one time, and it wouldn't cost them one more dime than it would to take a bunch of scrubs. It's basically the ultimate salary cap - the schools all pay the players the exact same amount, zero. Therefore, the dis-parity in college hockey is NOT due to the money.

                  To sum up - I think you have the cart before the horse. The best players want to go to the schools that have historically given players the best chance of going pro. They congregate at the top schools in order to develop and play at a higher level and to be noticed by the scouts. If the top schools have more money, then that is the result of their success - not the cause of it.
                  If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: parity

                    Bring the red shirt, and purple gloves and the party will last until at least 10PM.
                    Having a clear conscience just means you have a bad memory or you had a boring weekend.

                    RIP - Kirby

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: parity

                      LynahFan is right to an extent, but the real money in college hockey isn't spent on players. It's spent on the facilities arms race, and those schools who have invested heavily in building larger, better faciliities are the ones that tend to be in the NCAAs year after year, as recruits see facilities as a tangible school commitment to excellence.

                      This is not the case at the Ivies. who don't generally don't need great facilities to get the players they target. They have strong academic brands that do the heavy lifting.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: parity

                        Originally posted by bigblue_dl View Post
                        Bring the red shirt, and purple gloves and the party will last until at least 10PM.
                        must spread rep.
                        Code:
                        As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
                        College Hockey 6       College Football 0
                        BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
                        Originally posted by SanTropez
                        May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
                        Originally posted by bigblue_dl
                        I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
                        Originally posted by Kepler
                        When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
                        He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X