cost vs benefit

[Runninwiththedogs]

Re: cost vs benefit

College administrators are certainly responsible for determining the expense and academic benefit of a one year versus a four year academic scholarship. College administrators by all rights should be equally responsible for determining the expense and athletic benefit of a one year versus a four year athletic scholarship.

Let's see...

Erik Johnson or Kevin Wehrs?
Jonathan Toews or Darcy Zajac?
Mason Raymond or Jordan Fulton?
Louis Leblanc or... anyone else at Harvard?

Tough choices.

 

[HarleyMC]

Re: cost vs benefit

College administrators are certainly responsible for determining the expense and academic benefit of a one year versus a four year academic scholarship. College administrators by all rights should be equally responsible for determining the expense and athletic benefit of a one year versus a four year athletic scholarship.

NCAA scholarships are awarded for one academic year at a time. There are no guaranteed four-year athletic scholarships in NCAA Division I or II, and one-year scholarships can be renewed annually for a maximum of five years within a six-year period. Your point is senseless.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: cost vs benefit

College administrators are certainly responsible for determining the expense and academic benefit of a one year versus a four year academic scholarship. College administrators by all rights should be equally responsible for determining the expense and athletic benefit of a one year versus a four year athletic scholarship.

 

[Driftryder]

Re: cost vs benefit

NCAA scholarships are awarded for one academic year at a time. There are no guaranteed four-year athletic scholarships in NCAA Division I or II, and one-year scholarships can be renewed annually for a maximum of five years within a six-year period. Your point is senseless.

There you go Harley throwing facts into a perfectly good rant.

 

[Dirty]

Re: cost vs benefit

There was a good rant?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: cost vs benefit

College administrators are certainly responsible for determining the expense and academic benefit of a one year versus a four year academic scholarship. College administrators by all rights should be equally responsible for determining the expense and athletic benefit of a one year versus a four year athletic scholarship.

Yes, because all college administrators have magic crystal balls and can predict exactly how long each 16 year old will end up staying in college.

You act like you think administrators and coaches don't think about these things. Can you offer any proof of that? At least some evidence? Anecdotes, even? I'm sure that every administrator wants the athletic department to produce winning teams while staying in budget, and that the coaches do, too. The coaches probably put a little more emphasis on winning and the administrators a little more on budget, but that's just a difference of degree - the administrators know that if the AD doesn't have enough budget, it won't produce winning teams, while the AD knows that if it consistently goes over budget, people will eventually be fired. This is true for schools that graduate every player and for schools that have some one-and-dones.

It's also ludicrous to try to weigh something like "athletic benefit" against the economic costs involved. What does that even mean? If you're talking about the player's impact on the team's winning percentage, then it's hopeless, because that's a value judgement - each school, each administrator, and each coach will put a different value on winning. At some schools, it's probably considered perfectly okay to spend $50k per extra win, while at some schools, it's not. At some schools (looking at you, Union ) it's considered perfectly okay to have a .500 record and make a little noise in the conference tournament, while at some schools, it's not. By plotting record vs. budget, I think you can already get a pretty good idea which schools are which, so it doesn't take some special study to determine which schools think it's worth spending extra money to improve the record.

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: cost vs benefit

Has anyone conducted an objective study comparing the winning percentages of college hockey programs to the cost of subsidizing "one and done" or "two and done" players on those teams? A substantial percentage of short-timer hockey recruits are rewarded with scholarships - at a substantial economic expense to the colleges involved.
Do these guys demonstrably contribute to the success of the programs which pay their freight, or are institutions of higher learning exempt from financial accountability? There are other, perhaps more productive ways to spend the money dedicated to short-time students.

OK, Osorojo I'm going to try and take this seriously for a minute and respond.

A.) The answer to your question, is no. No one has undertaken that kind of study. You could do so and report back. My guess is that yes, teams that have a one and done do in fact have a higher winning % then those that don't.

B.) Yes these guys do demonstrably contribute to the success of an institution. They perform at a high level that leads a program to have a successful season. If they didn't, they wouldn't be done. With very few exceptions most players leave for the NHL, and if they aren't putting up points (helping the team) they aren't going to get signed. Moreover, it allows the schools to get better recruits with more players going pro which further contributes to the success of the program. A successful program is essentially advertising.

C.) Your final statement is tough to justify. There are better ways to spend that money... Well, first off that depends on the school. There is a huge difference in tuition rates at the different colleges. But lets take a worst case scenario and look. UVM has one of the highest tuition rate for a pubic school. Viktor Stalberg played for 3 years and then left of the Maple Leafs. So by your argument UVM wasted 75,000 on Stalberg. I assure, you they spend way more on stupider things, Heck they likely spend nearly that on patching lawn grass. In turn Stalberg led UVM to the final four, UVM got national exposure, better recruits, hours of free advertising on national TV, etc.

And believe or not, when a student has a few options that are all relatively equal they will choose a school based on these things to break the tie....

But certainly take a look. There is a list on USCHO or INCH that has all the early departures and what year in school they were. You could simply look at those teams and look up their winning %.

Let us know what you find out. BTW do you actually root for any particular team?

 

[FiveHole12]

Re: cost vs benefit

Yes, because all college administrators have magic crystal balls and can predict exactly how long each 16 year old will end up staying in college.

You act like you think administrators and coaches don't think about these things. Can you offer any proof of that? At least some evidence? Anecdotes, even? I'm sure that every administrator wants the athletic department to produce winning teams while staying in budget, and that the coaches do, too. The coaches probably put a little more emphasis on winning and the administrators a little more on budget, but that's just a difference of degree - the administrators know that if the AD doesn't have enough budget, it won't produce winning teams, while the AD knows that if it consistently goes over budget, people will eventually be fired. This is true for schools that graduate every player and for schools that have some one-and-dones.

It's also ludicrous to try to weigh something like "athletic benefit" against the economic costs involved. What does that even mean? If you're talking about the player's impact on the team's winning percentage, then it's hopeless, because that's a value judgement - each school, each administrator, and each coach will put a different value on winning. At some schools, it's probably considered perfectly okay to spend $50k per extra win, while at some schools, it's not. At some schools (looking at you, Union ) it's considered perfectly okay to have a .500 record and make a little noise in the conference tournament, while at some schools, it's not. By plotting record vs. budget, I think you can already get a pretty good idea which schools are which, so it doesn't take some special study to determine which schools think it's worth spending extra money to improve the record.

I just wanted to see this post again.

 

[TimU]

Re: cost vs benefit

Viktor Stalberg played for 3 years and then left of the Maple Leafs. So by your argument UVM wasted 75,000 on Stalberg. I assure, you they spend way more on stupider things, Heck they likely spend nearly that on patching lawn grass.

http://www.uvm.edu/~isis/sr/sr09.pdf

 

[LynahFan]

Re: cost vs benefit

I just wanted to see this post again.

Ha. Now it looks like you really just liked my post.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: cost vs benefit

Let us know what you find out. BTW do you actually root for any particular team?

Osorojo roots against all teams.

 

[Osorojo]

Re: cost vs benefit

Winning percentage is an easy and accurate way to judge the success of a hockey program and to measure the benefit of the addition or subtraction of members to the team's roster. Far from being impossible, this evaluation of athletic benefit is made daily by every coach at every level of competitive hockey.

To be sure, the money spent on a one-and-done hockey player is not wasted, but the question remains: Could this money be better spent elsewhere within a hockey program? The majority of college admissions officers assess the dedication of an applicant to earning a degree as a vital consideration for admission.

Assessing a student applicant's dedication to earning a degree is not an exact science, but for the sake of ethical and fiscal accountability, academic administrators are obliged to try to determine this, particularly if a scholarship is involved. The fact that a student applicant/recruit is a hockey player does not suspend the ethical and financial accountability of the coaches and administrators involved.

Some college hockey fans feel that one-and-done hockeyship players benefit the college programs in which they [briefly] participate. Rather than run a hockey program only by feelings it would make better sense to examine the data, form logical conclusions, and act upon them.

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: cost vs benefit

I liked it better when we was talking about the BTHC in every other thread......

 

[Dirty]

Re: cost vs benefit

So why don't you examine the data? You have numerous ideas but never attempt to act on any of them. Why?

 

[Slap Shot]

Changing the name from "scholarships" to "hockeyships" would focus the intent of expenditures and encourage cost-benefit analysis. Then colleges could determine whether a one year hockeyship is more cost effective than a four year hockeyship by using arithmetic, as you have suggested.

I am unaware of any "Ivies" offering tuition/fees in exchange for playing hockey and mowing lawns. Can you provide specifics?

Did you even read his post? perhaps satire is lost on some

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: cost vs benefit

Winning percentage is an easy and accurate way to judge the success of a hockey program and to measure the benefit of the addition or subtraction of members to the team's roster. Far from being impossible, this evaluation of athletic benefit is made daily by every coach at every level of competitive hockey.

To be sure, the money spent on a one-and-done hockey player is not wasted, but the question remains: Could this money be better spent elsewhere within a hockey program? The majority of college admissions officers assess the dedication of an applicant to earning a degree as a vital consideration for admission.

Assessing a student applicant's dedication to earning a degree is not an exact science, but for the sake of ethical and fiscal accountability, academic administrators are obliged to try to determine this, particularly if a scholarship is involved. The fact that a student applicant/recruit is a hockey player does not suspend the ethical and financial accountability of the coaches and administrators involved.

Some college hockey fans feel that one-and-done hockeyship players benefit the college programs in which they [briefly] participate. Rather than run a hockey program only by feelings it would make better sense to examine the data, form logical conclusions, and act upon them.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yIoBWwe6kzg?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yIoBWwe6kzg?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: cost vs benefit

Winning percentage is an easy and accurate way to judge the success of a hockey program and to measure the benefit of the addition or subtraction of members to the team's roster. Far from being impossible, this evaluation of athletic benefit is made daily by every coach at every level of competitive hockey.

To be sure, the money spent on a one-and-done hockey player is not wasted, but the question remains: Could this money be better spent elsewhere within a hockey program? The majority of college admissions officers assess the dedication of an applicant to earning a degree as a vital consideration for admission.

Assessing a student applicant's dedication to earning a degree is not an exact science, but for the sake of ethical and fiscal accountability, academic administrators are obliged to try to determine this, particularly if a scholarship is involved. The fact that a student applicant/recruit is a hockey player does not suspend the ethical and financial accountability of the coaches and administrators involved.

Some college hockey fans feel that one-and-done hockeyship players benefit the college programs in which they [briefly] participate. Rather than run a hockey program only by feelings it would make better sense to examine the data, form logical conclusions, and act upon them.

Of course the money could be better spent. Colleges could use that money to give another raise to those senile professors that every school has; you kow, the ones who should've retired a decade ago. Or give another raise to the typically undeserving University President & Senators. Or add it to the student activity fund and let student government waste it as they see fit.

Then, USAHockey should just acknowledge that the NCAA route doesn't develop NHL and Olympic-level talent very often, and spend their development money to encourage the creation of the new USMJHL. Since we all know that real hockey players go the major junior route anyway, and it's high time that the dozen or so serious US hockey fans recognize this. Right?

 

[Osorojo]

Re: cost vs benefit

So why don't you examine the data? You have numerous ideas but never attempt to act on any of them. Why?

If college hockey program directors have already examined this data, as I believe they should and as previous posts by others have suggested they have already done, then why should I laboriously duplicate their efforts when they could just share their findings?

If directors of college hockey programs have not assembled this data and examined it I am convinced it is their job to do so, not mine.

The data may suggest that college hockey programs benefit from enrolling and awarding scholarships to individuals who are very likely to drop out in a year or two. If so, then colleges should strive to recruit and award scholarships to hockey players who will be one or two and done, and fans should accept this.

If recruiting and awarding scholarships to hockey players who are likely to be short-term dropouts does NOT benefit college hockey programs then it would be assinine to continue to recruit and subsidize such players.

 

[Happy]

Re: cost vs benefit

Winning percentage is an easy and accurate way to judge the success of a hockey program and to measure the benefit of the addition or subtraction of members to the team's roster. Far from being impossible, this evaluation of athletic benefit is made daily by every coach at every level of competitive hockey.

To be sure, the money spent on a one-and-done hockey player is not wasted, but the question remains: Could this money be better spent elsewhere within a hockey program? The majority of college admissions officers assess the dedication of an applicant to earning a degree as a vital consideration for admission.

Assessing a student applicant's dedication to earning a degree is not an exact science, but for the sake of ethical and fiscal accountability, academic administrators are obliged to try to determine this, particularly if a scholarship is involved. The fact that a student applicant/recruit is a hockey player does not suspend the ethical and financial accountability of the coaches and administrators involved.

Some college hockey fans feel that one-and-done hockeyship players benefit the college programs in which they [briefly] participate. Rather than run a hockey program only by feelings it would make better sense to examine the data, form logical conclusions, and act upon them.

If you will give me a list of all first round NHL draftees for the next ten years, and then a list of all of these players that go pro early, I will give you the data you want.

 

[Dirty]

Re: cost vs benefit

So because you don't want to. I see. Once again you have a question and expect everyone else to do the work to answer it. If you spent have the time trying to find answers that you spend asking all these questions, you just might have found a solution to at least one of them by now.