Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[LynahFan]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

The main purpose for building and operating a college is to provide academic instruction, and not just to Greek philosophers.* What is the purpose of recruiting and awarding a scholarship to a kid who doesn't care much about academic instruction but really wants to play pro hockey, and is probably honest enough to admit it? Hint: this purpose does not conform with the mission of a reputable college.

Who are you to decree what the purposes of colleges are? I'd say that every college's goals are different, and it's best left up to the people who know each college's situation the best - their faculty councils and boards of trustees. And guess what? You're in luck, because there are 4,400+ colleges in the US who have decided that D-1 men's hockey does NOT fit with their priorities. So, overall, I think you would have to be pretty happy that nearly 99% of US colleges have their priorities straight, according to your criteria.

How exactly are the other 1% ruining the overall state of higher education in the US?

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

My, you change your mind a lot. First you claimed there was no reason for kids who wanted to turn pro to go to college. Now your latest argument is that there are in truth numerous kids who go to college who want to play pro hockey, and as soon as possible, but they have "the right" to do so. Must be making dropout hockey a civil rights issue is your new argument because your last one was a pitiful denial of reality.

Are you really that challenged? You don't see that kids with no interest in academics will go to major junior and those with an interest in academics go the NCAA route. They both aspire to a career in pro hockey, but based on different priorities choose different routes. This is precisely why your argument really doesn't hold up. Where as football and basketball have no alternative route, hockey does. And that is why those that go to college are acadmically capable of doing so. And most hockey programs have GSR's higher then the general student body as playing time is often tied to academic progress. You are just wrong. Why aren't you railing about this on a college football forum??

 

[TimU]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

*Your anti-intellectual bias is showing through. Those college eggheads better not try to force your hockey heros to learn, eh?

Actually, it's you who is showing some real bias and bigotry by assuming that college hockey players can't or don't want to study and learn, without a shred of evidence to back it up.

Put yourself in this situation: You are an 18- or 20-year-old kid so skilled at ice hockey that you have the opportunity to get a free education at the University of Michigan (for example), and possibly to play the game professionally. There are major junior teams who want you to play for them and who tell you that college hockey will hurt your chances to play in the NHL, but you decide to enroll in school. After two years of playing hockey and maintaining a GPA higher than the overall university average, you have made real progress on the ice, and an NHL team offers you several hundred thousand dollars up front to sign a professional contract, which itself could earn you many millions of dollars before the age of 30. You could say no, insisting on staying through graduation to maintain the purity of NCAA sports, and risk losing two years at the end of your professional career - or worse, a career-ending injury playing in college. You could also say yes, withdraw from school with a good likelihood of gaining a lifetime of financial security, and . . . get ready, here comes the good part . . . finish your degree during or after your pro hockey career.

You sign on the dotted line. What are you: a smart kid who took advantage of every opportunity that you've gained through talent, hard work, and discipline in order to make a good living and get a high-quality education, or a dropout who embodies the inherent corruption in college athletics?

I hope you won't respond - again - by saying that NCAA rules allow kids to enroll in school with no intention of graduating. First of all, that option exists with or without the NCAA. And the fact is that you are lumping the kids who fit the profile I described with every other athlete and non-athlete who quits or flunks out of school from a lack of interest or ability.

I would bet that most of us on this site have friends who maintained good grades while playing hockey, left school prior to graduation in order to play professional hockey, and came back later to finish their degree work. Do you know of any D1 player who got a 400 on his SAT?

 

[Osorojo]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Actually, it's you who is showing some real bias and bigotry by assuming that college hockey players can't or don't want to study and learn, without a shred of evidence to back it up.


You sign on the dotted line. What are you: a smart kid who took advantage of every opportunity that you've gained through talent, hard work, and discipline in order to make a good living and get a high-quality education, or a dropout who embodies the inherent corruption in college athletics?

I hope you won't respond - again - by saying that NCAA rules allow kids to enroll in school with no intention of graduating. First of all, that option exists with or without the NCAA. And the fact is that you are lumping the kids who fit the profile I described with every other athlete and non-athlete who quits or flunks out of school from a lack of interest or ability.

I would bet that most of us on this site have friends who maintained good grades while playing hockey, left school prior to graduation in order to play professional hockey, and came back later to finish their degree work. Do you know of any D1 player who got a 400 on his SAT?

TimU, you are correct that a kid who really wants to play hockey should not attend college but sign with the pros, and it's a smart choice for him. My point exactly. Why should he risk injury and waste practice time with academic studies? If dropping out of college is a smart choice for a kid who aspires to a pro hockey career how in blazes is entering college a smart choice, either for him or for the college which recruits him and gives him a scholarship?

Consider the hogwash which has been used to defend colleges which recruit and award scholarships to wannabe pro hockey players who are highly likely to drop out in a year or two. Among these excuses have been:

"Youngsters who want to become pro hockey players don't go to college"??!

"The essential purpose of a college is not academic instruction"??!

"Eliminating entrance examinations does not degrade college entrance requirements"?!!

"Students that drop out solve colleges' academic problems"??!

Don't accuse me of objecting to student athletes. I have known some and respect them greatly. My gripe is colleges that recruit athletes who aren't students and don't even want to be. Even hockey college admissions officers can spot such individuals, and instead of recruiting them and offering them scholarships these admissions officers should advise these youngsters to do the "smart thing" and go to junior hockey.

Colleges do not identify students they accept who score a "ZERO" on their one and only college admission examination. Colleges are even more reluctant to identify athletes they recruited and awarded scholarships who scored in the 400's on their only admission examination. If recruiting and giving scholarships to such students is good for the college and good for the kids why don't the colleges advertise their benevolence? Come on, you know why.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

My gripe is colleges that recruit athletes who aren't students and don't even want to be.

And yet, you can't name even a single one.

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Colleges do not identify students they accept who score a "ZERO" on their one and only college admission examination. Colleges are even more reluctant to identify athletes they recruited and awarded scholarships who scored in the 400's on their only admission examination. If recruiting and giving scholarships to such students is good for the college and good for the kids why don't the colleges advertise their benevolence? Come on, you know why.

How do you know that there are college hockey players that have scored a "ZERO" on their SAT's?
That is the whole problem with your argument, you have this idea that schools bring in loads of these students that are academically ineligible and can not meet entrance requirements because they are good hockey players.
But, humor me here for a minute......what if.....they don't. What if college hockey players are recruited and then if they don't meet entrance requirements they aren't allowed to matriculate. What if..... the incoming recruits are able to meet entrance requirements. What if they chose NCAA hockey over Major Juniors becuase <gasp> they want to get an education.....

I will await your data of how many college hockey players earned a 400 on their SAT's. Heck, why don't you look up those getting less then 800.

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

The World Needs Ditch Diggers too.

 

[Osorojo]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

How do you know that there are college hockey players that have scored a "ZERO" on their SAT's?
That is the whole problem with your argument...."

I will await your data of how many college hockey players earned a 400 on their SAT's. Heck, why don't you look up those getting less then 800.

"How do I know . . . ?" I DON'T, but neither do you. As far as I can discover, colleges do not reveal the SAT's of their hockey scholarship holders. I await you providing such a source. Can you explain why neither the NCAA nor colleges release this information, especially since hockey scholarships at state colleges (including Cornell) are funded by taxpayers? If you have this information don't hesitate to reveal its source. Don't try to slip in an average SAT score for all hockey players (or athletes) at a college, which would only be an attempt to allow the accomplishments of some student athletes to compensate for academic and financial fraud.

Tell you what. Reveal the SAT's of athletic scholarship holders in the last two years' top five Division I top rated hockey teams and you might have a credible argument.

 

[CLS]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

"How do I know . . . ?" I DON'T, but neither do you. As far as I can discover, colleges do not reveal the SAT's of their hockey scholarship holders. I await you providing such a source. Can you explain why neither the NCAA nor colleges release this information, especially since hockey scholarships at state colleges (including Cornell) are funded by taxpayers? . . .

In all liklihood, it's because of privacy regulations, not some nefarious plot. Just because hockey scholarships are funded by the state, that does not give everyone the right to know the SAT scores of the recipients.

When our son was in college, the school couldn't even mail his grades to us without his express consent.


Osorojo,

I’ve made a few entries in this and the other string. I’ve made many more that I haven’t posted because I thought that they were too angry or combative. I’m trying to back off a bit and understand where you’re coming from. It’s apparent we disagree strongly, but I’d like to understand whether we disagree on whether certain situations exist at all, or whether we disagree on the degree to which they exist.

Do you believe that every college hockey player who signs a professional contracts and leaves school before graduating never had any intention of completing college? Or stated less clumsily that no college hockey player who signs a professional contract and leaves school before graduating ever had any intent of completing college?

Do you believe that the following situations do or could exist?

Prior to signing a professional contract and leaving school before graduating, a college hockey player was a good student (e.g. takes a normal course load in a challenging major, goes to class, and gets decent grades). If you do think it does or could exist, would that bother you?

When deciding to play college hockey a player’s thought process is: “I hope to play professional hockey, and if I get offered a professional hockey contract I may drop out of school, but if I’m not offered a professional hockey contract then I’ll complete my degree in [major] and try to get a job that degree qualifies me for”. If you believe that this situation does or could exist, would that bother you?

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

"How do I know . . . ?" I DON'T, but neither do you. As far as I can discover, colleges do not reveal the SAT's of their hockey scholarship holders. I await you providing such a source. Can you explain why neither the NCAA nor colleges release this information, especially since hockey scholarships at state colleges (including Cornell) are funded by taxpayers? If you have this information don't hesitate to reveal its source. Don't try to slip in an average SAT score for all hockey players (or athletes) at a college, which would only be an attempt to allow the accomplishments of some student athletes to compensate for academic and financial fraud.

Tell you what. Reveal the SAT's of athletic scholarship holders in the last two years' top five Division I top rated hockey teams and you might have a credible argument.

Dude you are confused. You are the one putting out this argument, therefore the burden of proof is on you to make a case. You haven't.

Secondly, why does the SAT scores matter. Wouldn't it be more prudent to look at their GPA's or graduation rates.....you know how they are actually doing.

And what's the deal with average SAT's......only scholarship players count? Because if you are a "good" player then you must be stupid?

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Osorojo

Here are the frozen four participants from the past 5 years and their APR's and GSR's as compared to the 4 lowest ranked Hockey programs. The top teams with their academic performances are similar to the academic programs of the worst programs.


Wisco APR = 967 /1000 GSR = 68%
BC APR = 982 /1000 GSR = 87%
UND APR = 943/1000 GSR = Not Listed
Maine APR = 976/1000 GSR = 61%
Michigan APR = 981/1000 GSR = 75%
Michigan State APR = 978/1000 GSR = 72%
Notre Dame APR = 994/1000 GSR = 96%
Miami APR = 960/1000 GSR = 70%
Vermont APR = 994/1000 GSR = 91%
BU APR = 990/1000 GSR = 82%
Bemidji APR = 965/1000 GSR = Not Listed
RIT APR = 958 /1000 GSR = Not Listed

To compare the four lowest ranked schools......ones that clearly are not cheating.

American Inter APR = 987 /1000 GSR = Not Listed
Bentley APR = 986 /1000 GSR = Not Listed
Conn APR = 963 /1000 GSR = 81%
Holy Cross APR = 992 /1000 GSR = 96%


So Osrorojojojo as you can see the top hockey programs are no different then the worst hockey programs. Those programs that "cheat and recruit stupid players" seem to just as well with the APR and GSR as those that do not.

As you can clearly see the "have's" perform academically as well or better then the "have not's"

Now go start some other retarded thread.

 

[TimU]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

TimU, you are correct that a kid who really wants to play hockey should not attend college but sign with the pros, and it's a smart choice for him. My point exactly.

That's not what I said and you know it. Wanting to play pro hockey is not the same as being offered a contract. If a kid were good enough to be offered a lucrative NHL contract, he would probably choose that over college. But the kids you're complaining about aren't in that situation.

Here's a real-life example for you. There's a family from Massena, NY with two talented young hockey players for sons. The older brother is quite good, and he would love to play pro hockey. After high school, nobody offered him a ton of money to play. But he still wanted to play professionally. He was offered, and he accepted, a scholarship to St. Lawrence University, where he is about to enter his senior season. Had an NHL team offered him a big contract last year, he probably would have taken it and withdrawn from school. And he would have been smart to do so, even if it meant finishing his last year of school five or ten years from then. It didn't happen, so instead he worked hard in school and on the ice, and a year from now instead of being an aspiring pro hockey player he will be an aspiring pro hockey player with a college degree.

When the younger brother finished high school, he was taken very high in the first round of the NHL draft. He was offered that big contract. He took it, and he was also smart to do so. Now he's an NHL defenseman.

Everybody did the right thing.

Why should he risk injury and waste practice time with academic studies? If dropping out of college is a smart choice for a kid who aspires to a pro hockey career how in blazes is entering college a smart choice, either for him or for the college which recruits him and gives him a scholarship?

You have it exactly backwards. Again. You are devaluing higher education, and these kids are putting it on equal terms with their hockey aspirations. They are not guaranteed a shot at the NHL. They have no idea whether that will work out for them. They want their education anyway, and you are suggesting that anyone with a certain amount of athletic talent forget about it and just play hockey. Which is the bigger threat to the quality of education in the U.S.?

Entering college is in fact a brilliant choice for this type of kid. When he leaves, he will either have a degree to use inside and outside the workforce for the rest of his life, regardless of where hockey takes him, or he will be well on his way to earning it once his hockey career is finished. Do you think it would be smart to put all one's eggs in the basket of becoming a professional athlete (the chances of which are extremely small even for the extremely talented), and then have to start over applying to colleges three or four years later if the pro career hasn't worked out for reasons beyond one's control? That would be a gamble I wouldn't take with my future if a good college education were offered as an alternative. I'll bet you wouldn't either.

"How do I know . . . ?" I DON'T, but neither do you. As far as I can discover, colleges do not reveal the SAT's of their hockey scholarship holders.

They don't reveal them for non-hockey scholarship players either. So what?

 

[Patman]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

That's not what I said and you know it. Wanting to play pro hockey is not the same as being offered a contract. If a kid were good enough to be offered a lucrative NHL contract, he would probably choose that over college. But the kids you're complaining about aren't in that situation.

Here's a real-life example for you. There's a family from Massena, NY with two talented young hockey players for sons. The older brother is quite good, and he would love to play pro hockey. After high school, nobody offered him a ton of money to play. But he still wanted to play professionally. He was offered, and he accepted, a scholarship to St. Lawrence University, where he is about to enter his senior season. Had an NHL team offered him a big contract last year, he probably would have taken it and withdrawn from school. And he would have been smart to do so, even if it meant finishing his last year of school five or ten years from then. It didn't happen, so instead he worked hard in school and on the ice, and a year from now instead of being an aspiring pro hockey player he will be an aspiring pro hockey player with a college degree.

When the younger brother finished high school, he was taken very high in the first round of the NHL draft. He was offered that big contract. He took it, and he was also smart to do so. Now he's an NHL defenseman.

Everybody did the right thing.

I see a lot of crying by Octogon in this regard... but does he do the same crying about all those in the mid-1990s who left school early? You know, those people who left school to attain jobs in the computer and technology industry?

His whole premise is that the sport is on the verge of becoming corrupt because others have also become corrupt. Nobody mentioned major junior as a safety valve in the last thread.

Fact of the matter is you won't see this issue arise because the top level talent will go the Major Junior route... the MJ route is perfectly fine for those players with a clear road map to the pros.

College hockey, in general, does not suffer from a lunkhead problem (Chris Bourque aside)... those players usually go off to play major juniors and college is not an option for them. This is why there isn't a problem in college hockey... the problems tend to segregate themselves.

----

BTW, communicating student grades and academic particulars without permission is a FEDERAL CRIME.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Educational_Rights_and_Privacy_Act

 

[Osorojo]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

That's not what I said and you know it. Wanting to play pro hockey is not the same as being offered a contract. If a kid were good enough to be offered a lucrative NHL contract, he would probably choose that over college. But the kids you're complaining about aren't in that situation.

Here's a real-life example for you. There's a family from Massena, NY with two talented young hockey players for sons. The older brother is quite good, and he would love to play pro hockey. After high school, nobody offered him a ton of money to play. But he still wanted to play professionally. He was offered, and he accepted, a scholarship to St. Lawrence University, where he is about to enter his senior season. Had an NHL team offered him a big contract last year, he probably would have taken it and withdrawn from school. And he would have been smart to do so, even if it meant finishing his last year of school five or ten years from then. It didn't happen, so instead he worked hard in school and on the ice, and a year from now instead of being an aspiring pro hockey player he will be an aspiring pro hockey player with a college degree.

When the younger brother finished high school, he was taken very high in the first round of the NHL draft. He was offered that big contract. He took it, and he was also smart to do so. Now he's an NHL defenseman.

Everybody did the right thing.



You have it exactly backwards. Again. You are devaluing higher education, and these kids are putting it on equal terms with their hockey aspirations. They are not guaranteed a shot at the NHL. They have no idea whether that will work out for them. They want their education anyway, and you are suggesting that anyone with a certain amount of athletic talent forget about it and just play hockey. Which is the bigger threat to the quality of education in the U.S.?

Entering college is in fact a brilliant choice for this type of kid. When he leaves, he will either have a degree to use inside and outside the workforce for the rest of his life, regardless of where hockey takes him, or he will be well on his way to earning it once his hockey career is finished. Do you think it would be smart to put all one's eggs in the basket of becoming a professional athlete (the chances of which are extremely small even for the extremely talented), and then have to start over applying to colleges three or four years later if the pro career hasn't worked out for reasons beyond one's control? That would be a gamble I wouldn't take with my future if a good college education were offered as an alternative. I'll bet you wouldn't either.



They don't reveal them for non-hockey scholarship players either. So what?

TimU. -
You make some good points. We look at the same situation and come to opposite conclusions. Collge hockey is changing and inevitably will continue to change, whether for better or worse depends upon the dilligence of coaches, athletic departments, leagues, college administrations, and the NCAA. We shall see.

In answer to your question, "so what?" Many scholarships are paid by public taxes. Many colleges and universities are funded wholly or partly by public taxes. The public is entitled to know how their tax dollars are spent: not student's names, of course, but how successfully tax dollars are producing well-educated graduates. It's called "accountability," and it's all the talk nowadays.
The drop-out rate of scholarship students is apparently a closely held secret today, but if a substantial percentage of athletic or academic scholarship holders drop out, then most reasonable people would conclude their taxes were not well spent. The CURRENT drop-out ratio (not the names) of athletic and academic scholarship holders SHOULD be available to the public, who should not have to wait for a decade after the fact to discover how well their taxes have been spent.

 

[4four4]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

The drop-out rate of scholarship students is apparently a closely held secret today, but if a substantial percentage of athletic or academic scholarship holders drop out, then most reasonable people would conclude their taxes were not well spent. The CURRENT drop-out ratio (not the names) of athletic and academic scholarship holders SHOULD be available to the public, who should not have to wait for a decade after the fact to discover how well their taxes have been spent.

I agree but there is something called privacy and I don't see the NCAA publicly coming out with a list of scholarship drop outs. Just a hunch but the NCAA probably wants to avoid any sort of lawsuits.

 

[TimU]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

In answer to your question, "so what?" Many scholarships are paid by public taxes. Many colleges and universities are funded wholly or partly by public taxes. The public is entitled to know how their tax dollars are spent: not student's names, of course, but how successfully tax dollars are producing well-educated graduates. It's called "accountability," and it's all the talk nowadays.

Mmmmmm . . . maybe. But if you did that you would really have to look at the dropout rate of everybody who receives tax-derived financial support of any kind for college, whether merit-based or need-based.

What if the dropout rate for scholarship athletes were the same or lower as the rate for non-athletes? (I'd be willing to bet that it is, by the way. And I'd also be willing to bet that it's lower than that of non-scholarship athletes.)

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

What if the dropout rate for scholarship athletes were the same or lower as the rate for non-athletes? (I'd be willing to bet that it is, by the way. And I'd also be willing to bet that it's lower than that of non-scholarship athletes.)

You would be right. The NCAA looks at the GSR as an indicator. In almost every case the GSR at a given college is lower for the general population then for the hockey teams. Minny being the only exception I can remember. Ergo, more college hockey players finish their education and earn a degree then undergraduates in general. But OSrorosojojojo will refuse to look at things like GSR and APR, they don't fit his argument. Then again really nothing does that is factual.

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

TimU. -

The drop-out rate of scholarship students is apparently a closely held secret today, but if a substantial percentage of athletic or academic scholarship holders drop out, then most reasonable people would conclude their taxes were not well spent. The CURRENT drop-out ratio (not the names) of athletic and academic scholarship holders SHOULD be available to the public, who should not have to wait for a decade after the fact to discover how well their taxes have been spent.

Umm, actually it isn't. That is precisely what the GSR is. The GSR is the percentage who earn a degree, within 7 years. Therefore if a hockey team has a GSR of 85% then 15% left without a degree. Keep in mind that of that 15% it includes those that were in fine academic standing who just left for the pro's and doesn't mean they failed out.

Regardless because you are caught up with the way they are labeled, the most recent data 2009 is listed as .....2002. I know it's a difficult concept for you, but the data isn't 8 years old...it is 1 year old since you can't measure graduation after 7 years until ........after 7 years. The 2002 in when they entered school.

Stop ignoring the facts, you are looking ultra ignorant. Address the stats or just move along.

 

[Osorojo]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Mmmmmm . . . maybe. But if you did that you would really have to look at the dropout rate of everybody who receives tax-derived financial support of any kind for college, whether merit-based or need-based.

What if the dropout rate for scholarship athletes were the same or lower as the rate for non-athletes? (I'd be willing to bet that it is, by the way. And I'd also be willing to bet that it's lower than that of non-scholarship athletes.)

TimU: I'll take that bet - if I get to choose the college that awards the scholarships. I'll even give you the right of first refusal for the first three colleges I pick.

Anyway, this is a moot point. The colleges I would pick aren't about to reveal the percentage (not the names) of their scholarship players who graduate from their college, and we both know why. [It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy.]

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

TimU: I'll take that bet - if I get to choose the college that awards the scholarships. I'll even give you the right of first refusal for the first three colleges I pick.

Anyway, this is a moot point. The colleges I would pick aren't about to reveal the percentage (not the names) of their scholarship players who graduate from their college, and we both know why. [It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy.]

And I'd be willing to bet that A.) none of the 3 you picked would be schools with hockey programs and B.) that you would use the BBall team or football teams instead of the hockey teams. But go ahead pick 3 and then compare the GSR of the men's hockey team to that of the overall student population.