Reforming College Hockey

[johnnypohlfan]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

"Ad hominem" (name calling) and now "attacking a straw man" (putting words in someone's mouth) have been used to dismiss any concern about the relationship between academics and division I hockey. I never so much as suggested that every, or even most college hockey programs have academic problems. Those words were put in my mouth by someone else. The Minnesota example was only to educate those who insist there is no reason at all for concern about academics and division I hockey programs.Of course I picked a school which has a regrettable DSR to justify my concern. What in blazes did you expect?

You presented an argument with little to no support to back it up. Numerous times, people have responded with actual facts and numbers in an attempt to show you you might just be incorrect in your assumptions. You continuously ignore those posts, choosing instead to respond only to those who "name call" or perhaps make a statement that's easy to refute. When you know you have no answer for someone's point, you refuse to argue it or even acknowledge it, which is the basis for everyone's frustration with you.
What did I expect? A legit discussion or argument, but that's long since passed.
You chose to report the worst possible figure you could find regarding MN hockey, from 2007. Fair enough, as it does show that grad rates at that point in time were putrid for that particular school. It took only a few hours for another poster to discover that since the year you reported, grad rates for hockey players have improved at Minnesota, by a pretty decent margin from that year to the next. You chose, of course, to ignore that, and resort to your impish, "You guys are calling me names and therefore I'm right" statements. Hogwash.

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

By the way, the NCAA restriction for athletic teams (including hockey) to compete in post-season playoffs is a 50% or higher graduation rate. Any college is harshly criticized if its general student population has a graduation rate anywhere near as low as 50%. This reinforces my concern about low academic expectations of college hockey players, even if the NCAA and hockey fans are satisfied with a 50% graduation rate.
.

The NCAA has a 50% restriction so that means there are low expectations for college hockey players? And you have the balls to complain people are putting words in your mouth?

Go away moron, you serve no use here.

And just to reitertate one last time since you are seemingly so dense....ITS 84% you dumbshlt. Not 50%.

I'm sure I could find a school with a non-athletic graduation rate under 50% at some point in time somewhere if I wanted to cherry pick single points of data. Your mind is going old man, take your senility pills and go back to watching the Price is Right.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

Wow, that was a colossal waste of time. This Osorojo area clown has his head so far up his *** he's tonguing is liver.

 

[ts8801]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

Wow, that was a colossal waste of time. This Osorojo area clown has his head so far up his *** he's tonguing is liver.

I would vote its about to pop back out his mouth.. you figure out how that works

 

[Osorojo]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

The NCAA has a 50% restriction so that means there are low expectations for college hockey players? And you have the balls to complain people are putting words in your mouth?

Go away moron, you serve no use here.

And just to reitertate one last time since you are seemingly so dense....ITS 84% you dumbshlt. Not 50%.

I'm sure I could find a school with a non-athletic graduation rate under 50% at some point in time somewhere if I wanted to cherry pick single points of data. Your mind is going old man, take your senility pills and go back to watching the Price is Right.

In reality, the NCAA only PROPOSED a minimum GSR of 50% for teams in post season play. The proposal was not adopted. This year the NCAA sanctioned participation in an athletic tournament by 12 division I teams with GSR's ranging from 39% to 8% , The 84% in the previous post is probably a typo. The NCAA applies the same "standards" to all college sports, and considers hockey a college sport.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/campus-overload/2010/03/another_ncaa

Is there a rule which is applied to ALL college hockey teams which would prohibit participation in post-season tournaments if their GSR was, say, 8%?
If you find such a rule please let me know.
Is there any reason for college hockey programs to tollerate an 8% GSR?
If you can't think of one, let me know.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

In reality, the NCAA only PROPOSED a minimum GSR of 50% for teams in post season play. The proposal was not adopted. This year the NCAA sanctioned participation in an athletic tournament by 12 division I teams with GSR's ranging from 39% to 8% , The 84% in the previous post is probably a typo. The NCAA applies the same "standards" to all college sports, and considers hockey a college sport.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/campus-overload/2010/03/another_ncaa

Is there a rule which is applied to ALL college hockey teams which would prohibit participation in post-season tournaments if their GSR was, say, 8%?
If you find such a rule please let me know.
Is there any reason for college hockey programs to tollerate an 8% GSR?
If you can't think of one, let me know.

No - 84% was not a typo. It is the ACTUAL graduation rate for NCAA D-1 hockey players, not an NCAA limit for something. I guess it's not too surprising that you didn't recognize that number, since you consistently ignore the real numbers for hockey and keep basing your arguments on some of the worst offenders in basketball and football.

I don't think there's a single poster on this board who would "tollerate" an 8% GSR, but the actual rate is nowhere near that, so what's the point of that question?

You're extremely anxious to throw the baby out with the bathwater - and the bathwater isn't even dirty yet. Makes me think you have some grudge against the baby.

 

[ts8801]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

In reality, the NCAA only PROPOSED a minimum GSR of 50% for teams in post season play. The proposal was not adopted. This year the NCAA sanctioned participation in an athletic tournament by 12 division I teams with GSR's ranging from 39% to 8% , The 84% in the previous post is probably a typo. The NCAA applies the same "standards" to all college sports, and considers hockey a college sport.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/campus-overload/2010/03/another_ncaa

Is there a rule which is applied to ALL college hockey teams which would prohibit participation in post-season tournaments if their GSR was, say, 8%?
If you find such a rule please let me know.
Is there any reason for college hockey programs to tollerate an 8% GSR?
If you can't think of one, let me know.

you should go into politics.

You would fit in great. You're already great at ignoring relevant facts, in your attempt to push your agenda.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

No - 84% was not a typo. It is the ACTUAL graduation rate for NCAA D-1 hockey players, not an NCAA limit for something. I guess it's not too surprising that you didn't recognize that number, since you consistently ignore the real numbers for hockey and keep basing your arguments on some of the worst offenders in basketball and football.

I don't think there's a single poster on this board who would "tollerate" an 8% GSR, but the actual rate is nowhere near that, so what's the point of that question?

You're extremely anxious to throw the baby out with the bathwater - and the bathwater isn't even dirty yet. Makes me think you have some grudge against the baby.

WOOSH!!

I can hear it from here.

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

, The 84% in the previous post is probably a typo. The NCAA applies the same "standards" to all college sports, and considers hockey a college sport.

For this past year the GSR for men's hockey was 82% a drop of 2%. Sound the alarm

You may wish to know that the lowest GSR for any sport was 64% (men's football) and the high was 98% (women's skiing). There were 10 men's sports that with less or equal GSR's compared to men's hockey and 7 with higher GSR's. Men's hockey had the highest GSR for a sport with a major professional league, except for maybe tennis which was 2% higher. Men's hockey was 13% higher then baseball, 18% higher then basketball and 18% higher then football.

A detailed analysis can be found at :
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaa...r/2009/841gfw951_2009_d1_school_gsr_data.html


Hey, try not to ignore the stats anymore and just let the thread die. You may be able to recoup some respect if you acknowledge the facts.

 

[Osorojo]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

For this past year the GSR for men's hockey was 82% a drop of 2%. Sound the alarm

You may wish to know that the lowest GSR for any sport was 64% (men's football) and the high was 98% (women's skiing). There were 10 men's sports that with less or equal GSR's compared to men's hockey and 7 with higher GSR's. Men's hockey had the highest GSR for a sport with a major professional league, except for maybe tennis which was 2% higher. Men's hockey was 13% higher then baseball, 18% higher then basketball and 18% higher then football.

A detailed analysis can be found at :
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaa...r/2009/841gfw951_2009_d1_school_gsr_data.html


Hey, try not to ignore the stats anymore and just let the thread die. You may be able to recoup some respect if you acknowledge the facts.

Fact: There IS no minimum GSR for college hockey programs.

Fact: "Successful" college hockey programs, including nationl champions , have had GSR's well under 50%.

If you see no reason for concern in these documented facts you have a right to your opinion. Respect has been mentioned. Not much respect is due those who find no cause for concern in these facts. Finally, It is a fact that many people, including leading educators, share my concern. We have a right to this concern and factual reasons for it.

 

[NMU8405]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

The junior hockey team in Marquette was sold, and is being moved to Flint. How does U-M Flint Wildcats sound to everyone?

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

I like candle.

 

[MUhawks628]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

I like candle.

But I LOVE lamp.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

But I LOVE lamp.

Love is too big of a step for candle and I.

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

Fact: "Successful" college hockey programs, including nationl champions , have had GSR's well under 50%.

If you see no reason for concern in these documented facts you have a right to your opinion.

Osorojo

Listen, I gave you a link to this past year's overall GSR which were 82% as opposed to your proposed 8%.

The FACT is, you cherry pick a few numbers here and there, tell us all these facts and yet never provide a source. You speak in such generalization as you say essentially nothing, which is convient when you don't cite anything.

I gave you a link to the GSR overall. Had you looked you would have noted that this stretches back for the past 5-7 seasons. Which would be enough to see a trend? ANd that is what we are talking about, of course there isn't one so now you are shifting to "well one program 15 years ago had a low GSR and another 8 years ago, blah blah blah blah. You started this thread because there was a dire crisis about to occur and college hockey needed to be reformed. You have totally and utterly been shown to be nothing more then chicken little running around for no reason. And I might add shown to be closed minded and ignorant.

You will continued to be looked upon that way until you want to do the legwork to actually analyize some data and then cite sources that help your theory, and can actually refute or rebut the arguments others are making.

Until then you are a sorry excuse for an educator at any level, including 2nd grade art.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

I'm sure I could find a school with a non-athletic graduation rate under 50% at some point in time somewhere if I wanted to cherry pick single points of data.

That's easy- Boise State University. The general student body graduation is below 30%.

For whatever reason, the general student graduation rate for the mountain western schools is pretty low- even my alma mater of Idaho is only about 58%.

But the athletic programs for all of them are way above that.

I've been lurking on this thread a little, and have one question- for the players who DO actually finish, and don't go pro- doesn't this idea very, very much hurt them?

The current classic Michigan example- Sean Peach- you BC fans will remember him as the defenseman who passed the puck to Langfield to win the '98 championship, but us Michigan fans also remember him for an up and down and up carreer. He dabbled in some pro hockey, and then returned to school for medical school. Long story short- when Red's son had a pretty bad accident, Sean was part of the recovery- you can read that in a recent article about Red and Michgian Men.

I'm SURE there are tons of stories about players who didn't go pro, but are doing remarkably in their carrers due to their hockey scholarships. And I'm quite sure that there are MORE of them than the ones in the pros. Why sacrifice them? It's that NCAA commercial where the athletes all go pro in something other than sports.

 

[Osorojo]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

That's easy- Boise State University. The general student body graduation is below 30%.

For whatever reason, the general student graduation rate for the mountain western schools is pretty low- even my alma mater of Idaho is only about 58%.

But the athletic programs for all of them are way above that.

I've been lurking on this thread a little, and have one question- for the players who DO actually finish, and don't go pro- doesn't this idea very, very much hurt them?

The current classic Michigan example- Sean Peach- you BC fans will remember him as the defenseman who passed the puck to Langfield to win the '98 championship, but us Michigan fans also remember him for an up and down and up carreer. He dabbled in some pro hockey, and then returned to school for medical school. Long story short- when Red's son had a pretty bad accident, Sean was part of the recovery- you can read that in a recent article about Red and Michgian Men.

I'm SURE there are tons of stories about players who didn't go pro, but are doing remarkably in their carrers due to their hockey scholarships. And I'm quite sure that there are MORE of them than the ones in the pros. Why sacrifice them? It's that NCAA commercial where the athletes all go pro in something other than sports.

alfablue:
Thank you. My point exactly! Why give scholarships to athletes who history and admissions credentials indicate are unlikely to graduate, such as hockey programs with under 50% GSR's? Why allow such programs to participate in playoffs and prolong the cycle of wasted scholarships?

The last source I posted to prove the dismal graduation rates of playoff teams approved by the NCAA included a URL which for some reason does not work. This information can be found if you Google search "NCAA playoff graduation rate" and click on the third entry "Campus Overload." It conclusively proves the NCAA currently enforces no lower limit on a playoff team's graduation rate.

The dude who claims an 86% graduation rate for all college hockey players deceptively ignores the GSR's of successful (playoff) teams. The same dude never mentioned the inaccessible citation I posted a few days ago to document the graduation rates of NCAA playoff teams. Evidently the documentation [or existence] of facts is low on his list of priorities.

A coach who spends much of his or her discretionary budget recruiting and supporting untalented or uncommitted athletes will fail. An educational institution which spends much of its discretionary budget recruiting and supporting untalented or uncommitted scholars will fail.

I apologize for prolonging what has become a tedious argument, but I and many others are worried about the future of college hockey, college athletics in general, and even more worried about the future of this country, which inevitably will be decided by the education of its citizens. College athletic programs will influence the quality, direction, and goal of institutions of higher learning. I will not be bullied or badmouthed into silence.

 

[ts8801]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

alfablue:
Thank you. My point exactly! Why give scholarships to athletes who history and admissions credentials indicate are unlikely to graduate, such as hockey programs with under 50% GSR's? Why allow such programs to participate in playoffs and prolong the cycle of wasted scholarships?

The last source I posted to prove the dismal graduation rates of playoff teams approved by the NCAA included a URL which for some reason does not work. This information can be found if you Google search "NCAA playoff graduation rate" and click on the third entry "Campus Overload." It conclusively proves the NCAA currently enforces no lower limit on a playoff team's graduation rate.

The dude who claims an 86% graduation rate for all college hockey players deceptively ignores the GSR's of successful (playoff) teams. The same dude never mentioned the inaccessible citation I posted a few days ago to document the graduation rates of NCAA playoff teams. Evidently the documentation [or existence] of facts is low on his list of priorities.

A coach who spends much of his or her discretionary budget recruiting and supporting untalented or uncommitted athletes will fail. An educational institution which spends much of its discretionary budget recruiting and supporting untalented or uncommitted scholars will fail.

I apologize for prolonging what has become a tedious argument, but I and many others are worried about the future of college hockey, college athletics in general, and even more worried about the future of this country, which inevitably will be decided by the education of its citizens. College athletic programs will influence the quality, direction, and goal of institutions of higher learning. I will not be bullied or badmouthed into silence.

Except for when those athletes who fail to graduate donate large amounts of money back into the program.

Some college is better than no college IMO.

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

alfablue:
Thank you. My point exactly! Why give scholarships to athletes who history and admissions credentials indicate are unlikely to graduate, such as hockey programs with under 50% GSR's? Why allow such programs to participate in playoffs and prolong the cycle of wasted scholarships?

You are a retard. Alfablue was saying that the hockey team had a much higher graduation rate then the general student body. Good Grief Man...

The dude who claims an 86% graduation rate for all college hockey players deceptively ignores the GSR's of successful (playoff) teams. The same dude never mentioned the inaccessible citation I posted a few days ago to document the graduation rates of NCAA playoff teams. Evidently the documentation [or existence] of facts is low on his list of priorities.

TAKE YOUR MEDS !!

No one ignores any GSR's of successful playoff teams?? The OVERALL GSR is just that, OVERALL which takes into account ALL teams. You picking out the successfull teams ignore the others. It is you who are selectively cherry picking data.....dude.

Evidently you are a certified mentally challenged individual, you totally ignore any facts that aren't yours and you continue to NOT provide anything to back it up. Now, it's oopss sorry the link didn't work and I can't be bothered to provide it. loser.

As for successful playoff teams....BC graduates 88% , BU 82% ..........Just because UMinn had a terrible year doesn't equal some alarming trend. In fact the overall trend is increasing GSR.

Go back down into your bomb shelter turdnugget, someone will come get you when it's safe.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Reforming College Hockey

You are a retard.

It needed to be stated again.