Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[Osorojo]

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

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.

J.C. : Are you now adding mindreading to your list of credentials? If you truly can read my mind [predict which colleges I would select] it would give a big boost to the credibility of your opinions. Otherwise, . . .

 

[jcarter7669]

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

J.C. : Are you now adding mindreading to your list of credentials? If you truly can read my mind [predict which colleges I would select] it would give a big boost to the credibility of your opinions. Otherwise, . . .

BAHAHAHAHBAAHAHAHAHAHAW !!!!

Otherwise what??

You have a serious issue in reading comprehension. My Opinions? I am and have merely reported facts from various sources. Facts which you ultimately ignore. Credibility, you are the last person who should be denigrating someone elses credibility. You make outlandish statements with zero facts or stats to back them up. Moreover, I never claimed to read your mind, that would be why it was "a bet" and not "a guarantee."

But go ahead, surprise us all and pick 3 schools, show us their GSR's and if you really want to get clever minus the GSR from 100 to give us the "dropout" rate of the Men's hockey team as compared to the student population and prove your point. I will be waiting. Heck, list your top 3 schools and I will do it for you. All you have to do in order to put this to rest once and for all is name 3 schools. Go......

 

[komey1]

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

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.

I don't know why. Don't all colleges have to report that information to the NCAA? Didn't the Cincinnati basketball team make news and/or get in trouble for having a GSR of 0%?

 

[GoBucky36]

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

I disagree currently the state of Minnesota alone has more then enough talent to start up two more college hockey programs. IMO, the overall quality of Minnesota players is at its best like never before.

That wasnt really what I was talking about. I was referring more to the point of lets say all of the major schools who are powers in football and basketball were to start hockey programs.
If you suddenly had, lets say 100 or more schools with D1 hockey programs, you would be severely diluting the talent pool.
I have no doubt that Minnesota could start 2 more hockey programs and be fine, no one is really desputing that but what Im talking about here is much bigger than Minnesota. You need to think on a national scale, not just your own little neck of the woods.

 

[WildKitty]

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

What would happen if Big Ball schools started up hockey teams? Whoa!
* organization of teams and leagues
* post season
* effects on society
If (when?) hockey gets popular enough for Big Ball schools to start up their own teams (or when they decide they really just have too much money and want to start some new drastic venture), hockey popularity will (probably) spike! Which means awesomeness for little-kid hockey AND NHL! Hence, society.

As for organization of teams/leagues/post-season... we're already tangled up with what little we have! I'm all for more hockey. Call me when the organizing has been done! All we need is a BCS-style post-season...

 

[TimU]

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.

The college? We're right back where we started. You want to hunt around and find ONE school in the country that fits your preconceived model of academic corruption (which actually wouldn't be that hard if it existed) and hold it up as proof that college hockey as a sport is corrupt.

I truly don't believe you are dumb enough to think that one logically follows from the other, even if you could find your one college full of dropout athletes.

 

[TimU]

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

J.C. : Are you now adding mindreading to your list of credentials? If you truly can read my mind [predict which colleges I would select] it would give a big boost to the credibility of your opinions. Otherwise, . . .

I'd say you're the only one claiming ESP:

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.]

 

[Osorojo]

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

I'd say you're the only one claiming ESP:

Defenders of college hockey's immunity from corruption establish the incontestable fact that hockey teams have student athletes on their roster. Then these optimists conclude the presence of legitimate students on a team precludes the presence of any academic rotten apples on the same team. The logic goes like this:


most hockey players are successful students
no successful students are academic frauds
therefore, no hockey players are academic frauds

This is not ESP. It's faulty reasoning.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Defenders of college hockey's immunity from corruption establish the incontestable fact that hockey teams have student athletes on their roster. Then these optimists conclude the presence of legitimate students on a team precludes the presence of any academic rotten apples on the same team. The logic goes like this:


most hockey players are successful students
no successful students are academic frauds
therefore, no hockey players are academic frauds

This is not ESP. It's faulty reasoning.

Red bear, no one here is denying the fact that there are rotten apples in college. What people are saying, at least from what I can deduce, is that there are rotten apples contained within the groups of both student-athletes and student-non-athletes. That shouldn't be a surprise at all; I'm sure all of us (assuming everyone here has attended college, seeing as how the forum is about college hockey) have seen or known a rotten apple in college. Is the argument limiting rotten apples to student-athletes in general?

I realize that you may not be considering Major Juniors as a viable alternative, because the comparison sports (football and basketball in this case) both have minor professional leagues in Europe, not to mention Arena Football and other indoor football leagues in the USA. These leagues are better compared to the AHL and ECHL, as they are semi-pro adult leagues, not just meant for late teens. Unfortunately with the comparison sports, the only viable way to achieve the major professional league is to go through college, and sometimes, players (and teams) will take any means necessary to achieve limelight. It's less likely to happen in hockey because of major juniors, and should the sport become as popular as basketball, who knows, major junior leagues may creep up in the USA in order to further reduce corruption possibilities. However, to think there is immunity is just absurd.

Also, as a point of pickiness, the chain rule comparison you made in your last post would be "some hockey players are academic frauds", not no hockey players.

 

[jcarter7669]

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

Defenders of college hockey's immunity from corruption establish the incontestable fact that hockey teams have student athletes on their roster. Then these optimists conclude the presence of legitimate students on a team precludes the presence of any academic rotten apples on the same team. The logic goes like this:


most hockey players are successful students
no successful students are academic frauds
therefore, no hockey players are academic frauds

This is not ESP. It's faulty reasoning.

No, stop ignoring what people are saying ! No one said there were NO academically poor student athletes on a hockey team. But one or two doesn't mean that college hockey is in danger of mass corruption and fraud.

And in fact, the GSR plays this out. If a program has an 85% GSR then they have 15% who do not graduate. Maybe due to failing out, moving on to the pro's or just quitting both.

Look, UVM has a GSR of 91%......that means on a given team 2-3 hockey players won't graduate. Last season....two left. And the season before 1 left early for the pro's, and was academically fine. Hmmm, seems to fit pretty well.

I'm sure that in there are cases where a player leaves early for "personal reasons" that means their academic performance has been lacking. And the situation has been rectified.

Seriously though, when most schools carry a GSR of 80-90% how can you sit there and say that there are all these academically deficient students. They seem to be passing classes and earning enough credits to graduate??

Or are you suggesting that the teachers "give" them grades??

I am starting to get lost with what you are actually saying at this point because you simply keep dancing around any points brought up.

I gather your current point is

There are bad students in other NCAA sports
Hockey is an NCAA sport
Ergo, there has to be bad students in hockey.
Therefore hockey is academically corrupt and cheaters

Is that about right?

 

[jcarter7669]

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

Oh yeah,

and which 3 colleges did you want to look at drop out rates for???

 

[TimU]

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

Defenders of college hockey's immunity from corruption establish the incontestable fact that hockey teams have student athletes on their roster. Then these optimists conclude the presence of legitimate students on a team precludes the presence of any academic rotten apples on the same team.

No they don't. And you know it as well as anyone.

I've already asked you twice and you haven't responded. I'll ask you one more time. Can you show me where anybody here - other than you - has ever made a claim like this?

The logic goes like this:

most hockey players are successful students
no successful students are academic frauds
therefore, no hockey players are academic frauds

Again, not one single person has ever suggested either of these things. At this point I have to assume that you are purposely distorting the arguments against your position because you can't refute them any other way.

 

[jcarter7669]

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

Again, not one single person has ever suggested either of these things. At this point I have to assume that you are purposely distorting the arguments against your position because you can't refute them any other way.

Straw men are much easier to debate with. And Osroroojojojo has created a rather large one.

He doesn't respond because he can't. It's like arguing with a rock. He is nothing more then a troll trying to start something.

 

[Osorojo]

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

No they don't. And you know it as well as anyone.

I've already asked you twice and you haven't responded. I'll ask you one more time. Can you show me where anybody here - other than you - has ever made a claim like this?

Yup. Every argument opposing tighter restrictions upon the academic credentials of DI hockey players, especially scholarship players, relies upon the assumption either that academic and scholarship abuses do not exist in college hockey, or if they do it's not important. Anything else?

Let's see how the shoe fits on the other foot. A college admissions office has identified a very gifted student who would be an assest to their academic program and whom they wish to recruit. This prospect says he wants to play on the college hockey team, but he will not attend college unless he receives a scholarship. Unfortunately, this prospect can only skate on his inside edges.

Scholarship money is scarce and competition is fierce. Luckily, athletic scholarships have lax, nearly non-existent requirements, so this student is awarded an athletic scholarship. Naturally he will sit on the bench and probably quit the team, but his presence in the college will enhance the school's academic reputation, so he is awarded a hockey scholarship. Why not?

This scenerio is the mirror image of the reasoning and recommended actions of you who advocate recruiting athletes and awarding them scholarships without academic accountability - except that the limits of the prospect's skating ability were determined by first-hand objective measurement conducted under controlled conditions, while a high school GPA is no such thing, and the NCAA mandated SAT score of 400 is nothing at all.

 

[Osorojo]

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

No, stop ignoring what people are saying ! No one said there were NO academically poor student athletes on a hockey team. But one or two doesn't mean that college hockey is in danger of mass corruption and fraud.


I gather your current point is

There are bad students in other NCAA sports
Hockey is an NCAA sport
Ergo, there has to be bad students in hockey.
Therefore hockey is academically corrupt and cheaters

Is that about right?

Nope, but let make another attempt to explain my concerns, based upon things which are demonstrably true and will cause fundamental changes in college hockey. Bear with me.

Television has an unlimited appetite for fresh programing. Recently the number of available T.V. channels has exploded, and the number continues to grow. College hockey game broadcasts are relatively inexpensive to produce. Inexpensive access to comitted niche markets can produce huge profits.

These realities WILL change college hockey. Today's regulations and oversight WILL NOT be sufficient to protect the integrity of tomorrow's college hockey programs. As you know, I am suspicious that enough change has already taken place that traditional regulation and oversight of college hockey is currently failing. In any case, ignoring the storm clouds won't stop the rain.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

 

[jcarter7669]

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

Nope, but let make another attempt to explain my concerns, based upon things which are demonstrably true and will cause fundamental changes in college hockey. Bear with me.

Television has an unlimited appetite for fresh programing. Recently the number of available T.V. channels has exploded, and the number continues to grow. College hockey game broadcasts are relatively inexpensive to produce. Inexpensive access to comitted niche markets can produce huge profits.

So now televising games is going to cause the downfall of college hockey?

I suppose college lacrosse and softball better watch out. Corruption is coming!!

 

[TimU]

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

Yup. Every argument opposing tighter restrictions upon the academic credentials of DI hockey players, especially scholarship players, relies upon the assumption either that academic and scholarship abuses do not exist in college hockey, or if they do it's not important. Anything else?

Seriously? I ask you to identify one person who made those statements, and this is your response? I feel like I'm in an episode of The Simpsons.

"Homer, what safety enhancements have you instituted at the nuclear plant during your time as safety director?"

"Uhh . . . all of them."

Let's see how the shoe fits on the other foot. A college admissions office has identified a very gifted student who would be an assest to their academic program and whom they wish to recruit. This prospect says he wants to play on the college hockey team, but he will not attend college unless he receives a scholarship. Unfortunately, this prospect can only skate on his inside edges.

Scholarship money is scarce and competition is fierce. Luckily, athletic scholarships have lax, nearly non-existent requirements, so this student is awarded an athletic scholarship. Naturally he will sit on the bench and probably quit the team, but his presence in the college will enhance the school's academic reputation, so he is awarded a hockey scholarship. Why not?

This scenerio is the mirror image of the reasoning and recommended actions of you who advocate recruiting athletes and awarding them scholarships without academic accountability - except that the limits of the prospect's skating ability were determined by first-hand objective measurement conducted under controlled conditions, while a high school GPA is no such thing, and the NCAA mandated SAT score of 400 is nothing at all.

Wow. That makes less sense than anything you've said so far. And that's really saying something.

 

[komey1]

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

So are the schools that cannot by rule to offer athletic scholarships golden? Sweet! Once all the corrupt programs are put on probation for all this cheating - the NCAA tournament will be stuck with the Ivies, Union, and the AHA schools like RIT that cannot/will not offer athletic scholarships for hockey.

 

[CLS]

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

Nope, but let make another attempt to explain my concerns, based upon things which are demonstrably true and will cause fundamental changes in college hockey. Bear with me.

Television has an unlimited appetite for fresh programing. Recently the number of available T.V. channels has exploded, and the number continues to grow. College hockey game broadcasts are relatively inexpensive to produce. Inexpensive access to comitted niche markets can produce huge profits.

Yes, as demonstrably shown by:

-- The hugely profitable ESPN NHL broadcasts

-- The fact that ESPN was so desperate to televise the NCAA hockey tournament that they were forced to agree to televise minor sports, like basketball

-- The fact that the televison ratings of the NCAA hockey tournament were almost half as large as bass fishing tournaments and reruns of poker championships and last year even interrupted a broadcast of a riveting lacrosse overtime

-- The large number of threads about "What can we do about the unfettered growth of college hockey due to so many colleges starting hockey teams to collect the huge profits"

These realities WILL change college hockey. Today's regulations and oversight WILL NOT be sufficient to protect the integrity of tomorrow's college hockey programs. As you know, I am suspicious that enough change has already taken place that traditional regulation and oversight of college hockey is currently failing. In any case, ignoring the storm clouds won't stop the rain.

Suspicious? You're not positive ? So according to this standard:

[PLEASE don't claim college hockey programs will not take advantage of the NCAA's 00.00% qualifying test score to admit academically doomed "college"
hockey prospects. You would reveal yourself as a simpleton or a liar.]

you're not certain that you aren't a simpleton or a liar?

 

[Osorojo]

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

Seriously? I ask you to identify one person who made those statements, and this is your response?

TimU:

I can name a list of people who proclaim no precautionary changes in oversight, enforcement, or transparency are necessary in college hockey. Your name heads this list. Do you deny it? Then name some regulatory, or enforcement, or transparency changes you would recommend for college hockey? If you do this I may discover we share common ground.

WHY do these people deny changes in the administration of college hockey programs are unnecessary? So far they have presented two arguments in favor of the status quo in college hockey program administration:

1) "There is no problem, so there's no need to change."

2) "There is no need to change because the problems that do exist are relatively inconsequential and will remain so."

No other reasons have been advanced for defending the status quo in the administration or supervision of college hockey programs. If you have a third argument for no change it is not evident. Please share it - or reveal the changes you WOULD make in the regulation, enforcement, or transparency of college hockey programs.