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.

Reforming College Hockey

Re: Reforming College Hockey

Osorojo said:
I will not be bullied or badmouthed into silence.
Click to expand...

Atta boy. Fight the good fight for the unborn generations of alarmists, conspiracy theorists, and nutcases to come. One day - maybe not tomorrow and maybe not next year, but one day - when the next past-national-champion NCAA Division 1 men's ice hockey team has a sub-50% graduation rate for a single year, the nation will thank you.
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

jcarter7669 said:
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...



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.
Click to expand...

I'm not much frightened by bullying and namecalling and they say much more about you than me, but keep trying if it makes you happy.

"Successful" (playoff/championship) hockey teams are not disqualified by dismal graduation success rates. College hockey teams with generous scholarships and lousy graduation rates have enjoyed considerable success in the last decade, including several national championships. These are both yet-to-be-discredited facts.

Who will influence the direction taken by college hockey; losing and average programs with high GSR's, or winning programs with low GSR's; colleges that attract and reward students who are successful athletes, or colleges that attract and reward athletes who are not successful students? Should playoff eligibilty of college hockey teams be restricted by their graduation success rate? Yup. Are they? Nope.
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

Osorojo said:
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.
Click to expand...

You missed my point.

Lets say that the graduation rate is 75% for the team(and B10 schools are typically mid 80's). So for 25% of the team, school doesn't work.

Of that 25%, for how many of them is the cause of failure going pro early?

And then if we go this "major junior adoption" route, why are would we want to penalize that other 75% who were doing just fine? This is my core point- why are you suggesting to eliminate an education path for the majority of players who DO use this path to get a college education? Even if the numbers appear bad, there are still more that graduate than don't. I'm happy with the system supporting them and dealing with the other part. That's not burying my head, that's seeing that there STILL is a benefit.

3 bad eggs does not make the rest 9 bad. Your suggestion is that due to the 3 bad ones, we should not give a chance to the rest 9. I don't get that. As ts said- college for some is better than college for none, especially when the some is over 75%.

Again, when I was looking into general college graduation rates when the BSU data came up (they are my home school's main rival)- it showd that all the general graduation rates for the western schools was far far below that of the athletes.
 
Last edited:
Re: Reforming College Hockey

BTW, my Boise State example is the STUDENT BODY graduation rate- 26-28%. Not any team, and they don't have varisty hockey. But the athletics are well above that.
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

Chrevrolet
Honda
Toyota
Ford
Chrysler
Kia
Hyundai
Volvo
Mercedes
Fiat
BMW
Acura
Buick
Aston Martin
Mazda
Cadillac
Peugeot
Volkswagon
Renault
Bentley
Tata
Dodge
Rolls Royce
Porsche
Mini
Opel
Ferrari
Nissan
Audi
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

Jim Beam
Maker's Mark
Woodford Reserve
Knob Creek
Evan Williams
Wild Turkey
Bookers
Bakers
Bulleit
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

Finland
Great Brittain
France
Lithuania
Sweden
Italy
Cyprus
Slovenia
Poland
Germany
Iceland
Latvia
San Marino
Portugal
Greece
Macedonia
Denmark
Romania
Norway
Ireland
Andorra
Liechtenstein
Czech Republic
Estonia
Slovakia
Switzerland
Netherlands
Monaco
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Hungary
Austria
Russia
Belarus
Vatican City
Spain
Luxembourg
Moldova
Belgium
Croatia
Serbia
Albania
Bulgaria
Ukraine
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

Osorojo said:
"Successful" (playoff/championship) hockey teams are not disqualified by dismal graduation success rates.
Click to expand...

True, if the NCAA adopted a 60% GSR would you stop with this BS??

Osorojo said:
College hockey teams with generous scholarships and lousy graduation rates have enjoyed considerable success in the last decade, including several national championships. These are both yet-to-be-discredited facts.
Click to expand...

BC and BU ( who have by the way won the last 3) have GSR of 88 and 82%

Other then Minnesota, (and come on guys, Osooososjr wouldn't be here if it weren't for the golphers,) who else?

How about you pull up the last 10 Nation Champions and let us know what their GSR's are? I've already given you the past 3.

Nevermind, I know you will never put that much effort into.

The NC and runnerups from 2000-2010 and their most recent GSR

BC (6X) : GSR 88%
BU (1X) : GSR 82%
Wisco (2X) : GSR 68%
Miami (1X) : GSR 70%
Notre Dame (1X) : GSR 96%
Mich St ( 1X) : GSR 72%
Denver ( 2X) : GSR 86%
UND ( 3X ) : GSR ????
UMaine (2X) : GSR 61%
UNH (1X) : GSR 100%
UMinn. (2X) : GSR 52%

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaa...r/2009/841gfw951_2009_d1_school_gsr_data.html


So basically of the 22 possible spots since 2000 of the NC and Runner Up

2 Times it has been 50-60%
4 times it has been 60-70%
2 times it has been 70-80%
9 times it has been 80-90%
2 times it has been 90-100%
3 times it has been unknown.


Sorry, but it doesn't appear the data supports your assertion. Since we know the average is 82% for Men's hockey the top teams have been above average at least half the time (more if we exclude UND who doesn't seem to exist as far as the NCAA is concerned).

And only Minnesota has a GSR that would even be considered if a proposal for post season penalization were to be accepted.

Moreover, Minnesota has also gone from a rate of 43% in 2007 reportings to 52% in the 2009 reportings :eek:

Sir that right there "discredits" your "facts." One, exactly one school has had a lousy GSR and won a NC. One is not "Several."

NOW GO AWAY !
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

leswp1 said:
I keep coming in here trying to find the basis for the whole thread and it seems like it is one person with an opinion that is not swayed by any factual evidence or logic, who won't answer any serious inquiries regarding his opinion and a bunch of other people countering his lame argument that has no basis with a bunch of factual evidence. Why do I keep reading this:o
Click to expand...

You don't read the political threads, do you? :p
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

bigblue_dl said:
Finland
Great Brittain
France
Lithuania
Sweden
Italy
Cyprus
Slovenia
Poland
Germany
Iceland
Latvia
San Marino
Portugal
Greece
Macedonia
Denmark
Romania
Norway
Ireland
Andorra
Liechtenstein
Czech Republic
Estonia
Slovakia
Switzerland
Netherlands
Monaco
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Hungary
Austria
Russia
Belarus
Vatican City
Spain
Luxembourg
Moldova
Belgium
Croatia
Serbia
Albania
Bulgaria
Ukraine
Click to expand...

What about Turkey?

At least you didn't forget Poland. :D
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

I'll post some questions for this ludicrous idea. bear in mind I haven't had the mental strength to go back and read from the beginning, just clips of the argument and the original proposal. If this has already been brought up (as I imagine it has), I apologize. Some points:

1. A lot of college sport programs have low graduation rates of their athletes, do you propose we eliminate college sports as a whole and replace them all with minor leagues that take the name of the various colleges they are supposed to represent?

2. Isn't your proposal damaging to people who are both smart and athletic? Your proposal forces them to choose between school and developing their game, and since most of them want to be a professional at their sport, they will simply forsake college altogether for a shot at the pro's.

3. Minor league teams need financial sustainability in order to continue operating. How do you propose to deal with this? Boston wouldn't likely have the 4 hockey programs it has now under a major-junior league, and smaller markets such as Merrimack, Bentley, Sacred Heart, etc. simply won't be financially viable.

In addition, D1 programs thrive off an active student body that represents their team, and supports the team financially, through buying tickets (or in the case of some schools, through their tuition), buying sports paraphernalia, etc. With the loss of such a large chunk of support from such sports programs, as well as a lack of alumni support, how do you propose these replacement Major-Junior teams stay financially viable?
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

GoNU5 said:
I'll post some questions for this ludicrous idea. bear in mind I haven't had the mental strength to go back and read from the beginning, just clips of the argument and the original proposal. If this has already been brought up (as I imagine it has), I apologize. Some points:

1. A lot of college sport programs have low graduation rates of their athletes, do you propose we eliminate college sports as a whole and replace them all with minor leagues that take the name of the various colleges they are supposed to represent?

2. Isn't your proposal damaging to people who are both smart and athletic? Your proposal forces them to choose between school and developing their game, and since most of them want to be a professional at their sport, they will simply forsake college altogether for a shot at the pro's.

3. Minor league teams need financial sustainability in order to continue operating. How do you propose to deal with this? Boston wouldn't likely have the 4 hockey programs it has now under a major-junior league, and smaller markets such as Merrimack, Bentley, Sacred Heart, etc. simply won't be financially viable.

In addition, D1 programs thrive off an active student body that represents their team, and supports the team financially, through buying tickets (or in the case of some schools, through their tuition), buying sports paraphernalia, etc. With the loss of such a large chunk of support from such sports programs, as well as a lack of alumni support, how do you propose these replacement Major-Junior teams stay financially viable?
Click to expand...

Very interesting questions,

Let me be the first to inform you they have no place here.

Roscoe has no intention of actually answering questions that may disturb his little delusion that the NCAA is bad and all colleges should focus strictly on academics.

Since he won't answer them I have after 6 pages of his nonsense condensed what I expect his answers would be:D


1.) yes
2.) yes but they are a minority
3.) who cares sports are secondary, the major junior ideas was just to make it look like I'm a hockey fan.
4.) That's their problem, they can go under for all i care.
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

johnnypohlfan said:
That whooshing sound you hear is the joke going over my head. Please explain!?
Click to expand...
No joke, I was just sick of the stupidity that one poster was displaying, so I made some random posts. The post that statedude referenced I was trying to name all of the countries in Europe. I missed a couple. :p
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

bigblue_dl said:
No joke, I was just sick of the stupidity that one poster was displaying, so I made some random posts. The post that statedude referenced I was trying to name all of the countries in Europe. I missed a couple. :p
Click to expand...

Yea, I just noticed that you also missed Crete and Georgia. Not to mention Corsica.

But let's face it, it's MUCH more exciting than suggesting that college hockey should be played by someone other than college students.
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

Osorojo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Question for you: of all the players who left college early, what percentage were in good academic standing and making good progress toward their degrees? And yet, if they leave early, you consider them and their schools to be "failures." That's not failure in my book - it's just choosing a different path to success.

If schools were routinely accepting brain-dead goons who were flunking out of school, THAT would be a problem. But that's not the case at all in college hockey. Given that 86% graduate, and most of those who don't graduate leave school in good standing just to have a better shot at the pros, that means a very tiny percentage of hockey players flunk out of school - i.e. didn't "belong" in college.

It's a trite argument, but it's still true: if an non-athlete leaves school to accept a lucrative job or join a start-up company to have a shot at millions of dollars, that's okay, but it's somehow not okay for an athlete to do the same thing.

Besides, probably most of the kids leaving early aren't even US citizens, so save your handwringing over the country's future for some real problem. Seriously - what % of the US population plays college hockey and leaves school early? I'm guessing it's 20 kids per year at most, so that's 0.000007% of the US population. CRISIS!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top