Re: parity
Still trying to get my head around that one.
I'm not saying I don't quite disagree with you . . .
Still trying to get my head around that one.
I'm not saying I don't quite disagree with you . . .
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.
parity
- Thread starter Osorojo
- Start date
Runninwiththedogs
Tech Hot
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: parity
With some people, it's like asking a Red Sox fan to give respect to the Yankees. It just won't happen.
With some people, it's like asking a Red Sox fan to give respect to the Yankees. It just won't happen.
Re: parity
Flag: So-called "college hockey" fans whose love of the sport is limited to the circumstances of of one team don't deserve any more respect than the monomaniac fans you mentioned in the sport of baseball.
Flag: So-called "college hockey" fans whose love of the sport is limited to the circumstances of of one team don't deserve any more respect than the monomaniac fans you mentioned in the sport of baseball.
Re: parity
Rule of thumb: when Dirty starts making sense, it's time to stop arguing your point.
Rule of thumb: when Dirty starts making sense, it's time to stop arguing your point.
Re: parity
You really can't look at games of a few days to prove points - particularly when some teams are not at full strength due to World Juniors.
Any given night, any team can beat anyone. That's been proven over and over again. But at the end of the season, we will see many of the usual suspects in the NCAAs and Frozen Four.
You really can't look at games of a few days to prove points - particularly when some teams are not at full strength due to World Juniors.
Any given night, any team can beat anyone. That's been proven over and over again. But at the end of the season, we will see many of the usual suspects in the NCAAs and Frozen Four.
Dirty
#BanBiddy
Re: parity
He did. After I said this he started to agree with me. Which makes you wonder why he was arguing in the first place.
He did. After I said this he started to agree with me. Which makes you wonder why he was arguing in the first place.
Re: parity
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
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
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: parity
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.
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.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: parity
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.
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.
Re: parity
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%.
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%.
Re: parity
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.
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.
bigblue_dl
Armed
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.
When nations of individuals work with bottle caps build a respected flock of eagles to make styrofoam bleed blue mayonaise, we're ****ed.
Re: parity
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?
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?
Re: parity
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.
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.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: parity
Bring the red shirt, and purple gloves and the party will last until at least 10PM.
Bring the red shirt, and purple gloves and the party will last until at least 10PM.
Puck Swami
New member
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.
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.