What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

cost vs benefit

Re: cost vs benefit

Happy said:
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.
Click to expand...

How about you look at the last ten years for such data, which is a matter of fact rather than supposition? Coherent thought relies more upon precedent than premonition, which your request requires.
 
Re: cost vs benefit

Osorojo said:
How about you look at the last ten years for such data, which is a matter of fact rather than supposition? Coherent thought relies more upon precedent than premonition, which your request requires.
Click to expand...

Crazy idea here. Why don't you do it? You are the one who wants the answer to this question, so how about you look at all the data and find the answer.

You may be the single laziest person ever. You take all this time to ask all these questions but don't even try to put in even the smallest amount of effort to find out the answer yourself.
 
Re: cost vs benefit

Osorojo said:
How about you look at the last ten years for such data, which is a matter of fact rather than supposition? Coherent thought relies more upon precedent than premonition, which your request requires.
Click to expand...

Look, there are a maximum of 18 scholarships on each NCAA team each year. it costs the same whether a player is a one-and-done, or a 4 year player. The cost is exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
Re: cost vs benefit

Osorojo said:
But is the result of seeking and subsidizing short-timer hockey players better or worse for the college hockey program involved? You have missed the point.
Click to expand...

Which is that you are so lazy you probably refuse to wipe your own arse.
 
Re: cost vs benefit

Dirty said:
Which is that you are so lazy you probably refuse to wipe your own arse.
Click to expand...

He'd start a thread wondering what the costs/benefits would be if a) he did it himself or b) if he hired someone else to do it for him.
 
Re: cost vs benefit

Osorojo said:
But is the result of seeking and subsidizing short-timer hockey players better or worse for the college hockey program involved? You have missed the point.
Click to expand...

Dude I already answered this, are you simple or something.

It's better, high profile kids that leave early and go to the NHL bring prominence to a program. That leads to better recruiting, better recruiting leads to success, success leads to a lack of patience for stupid threads written by lazy people who don't wish to look up **** on their own, lazy people lead to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side...

yoda3oe.jpg
 
Re: cost vs benefit

Osorojo said:
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.
Click to expand...
In that case, I suggest you write to the ADs and SIDs of the colleges you're curious about instead of wasting your time posting on a message board. Do you think any of them actually read this board? I'm skeptical.

When you email them, I'd definitely recommend telling them that it's their job to assemble and disseminate this data so that it can be easily found. That is virtually certain to improve their helpfulness.
 
Re: cost vs benefit

Osorojo said:
But is the result of seeking and subsidizing short-timer hockey players better or worse for the college hockey program involved? You have missed the point.
Click to expand...

From some first-hand perspective (as far as schools are concerned), it is better. Prospectives want to play for a team because of their recent success of players going to the NHL, and you'll find this to be true within specific NHL clubs as well as young junior players. I know, call it farming if you will, but if you find a facility with fabulous training regiments (mind you, major juniors doesn't get very much time to do this), then why pass it up?

Teams get 18 scholarships. There are probably about 28 players on a team on average. Assume 3 are walk-ons, you're down to 25. Factor in financial aid, other academic scholarships, and such, and you can get it down to 18. Players' athletic scholarships have the right for 5 years (4 for playing plus a red-shirt year), but the player may break it if they choose to go to the professional leagues or leave the school. If the player leaves, hey, you now have the ability to offer up some more money the next year.

BTW, Bear Red, this is your last chance. After this, I turn to memes.
 
Re: cost vs benefit

Flagdude:


Thank you for a pertinent answer containing credible information and reasonable conclusions. The "farm team" system probably does work for college hockey programs, early departures and all.
 
Re: cost vs benefit

jcarter7669 said:
That leads to better recruiting, better recruiting leads to success, success leads to a lack of patience for stupid threads written by lazy people who don't wish to look up **** on their own, lazy people lead to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side...
Click to expand...

Rain makes corn.... corn makes whiskey ..... whiskey makes my baby a little frisky. :D
 
Re: cost vs benefit

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNn
 
Re: cost vs benefit

Osorojo said:
But is the result of seeking and subsidizing short-timer hockey players better or worse for the college hockey program involved? You have missed the point.
Click to expand...

For who?

Remember, schools are broken into different departments- for this question, it's athletic and acedemic.

For the athletic department, it's either cost neutral or cost beneficial- as mentioned before, you have fixed scholarships- so assuming you fill your series of ONE YEAR CONTRACTS (note the emphasis)- your scholarship costs are always the same wether you have all elite players who stay for 4 years, all that leave after 2, a mix- whatever. They have to be renewed each year, and once a student-athlete leaves, then there is no longer a cost associated with that student. There are two ways that it is cost beneficial to the program- the first is if the student leaves so late that the team is not able to fill that scholarship slot- so the athletic program saves that money for that one season. The second is obvious- they manage to sell more tickets. But you will find that most programs who have the problem the worst already sell out every season, and they manage to sell out all of the tickets that the NCAA gives them for tournament games. So unless the school can raise ticket prices based on a few players for a short while- more than likely, the additional sales will be pretty minimal since they are generally sold out.

In addition to that, one must consider that many of the schools that have this problem also have a rather major donor program in place where many, if not all, of the scholarships are part of an endowment that is supported by the booster programs- so, in fact, the athletic program doens't really see the impact of the change.

Moving toward the academic side- where it can be considered wooden nickels, but there is money that is moved from one department to the other. For acedemics- it's a wash or a negative. A wash- since the amount of money that can be transferred from the athletic department to the academic is fixed at 18 heads per academic calendar year. It can be a negative IF the scholarship does not go used, since it will lower the money the athletic department transfers to the academic department.

If you want real numbers, fill them in with the costs from a specific school.

There you go.
 
Re: cost vs benefit

This forum is privileged to have several contributing experts on defecatory hygiene, but they have not provided pertinent information or expressed an opinion about the original subject of this thread, which had to do with college hockey.

The cost of awarding scholarships is fixed, but the results are not. The benefit of having talented pro prospects on a college team is clear and undeniable. The problems created by one-and-done players are not as easily perceived, except maybe by coaches. The quick departures of players who briefly form the nucleus of a team create problems with planning, recruiting, and coaching.

The consensus of coherent fans seems to be that the presence of talent, even if it is raw and short-term talent, more than makes up for the problems caused by constant and rapid changes at the heart of the roster. Maybe so, but there is cause for doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top