Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[jcarter7669]

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

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.

I'm sure you can name a list that say no changes are needed, but what you were challenged to was to back up your statement that anyone has said that hockey and/or hockey players are absolutely incorruptable? Waiting......

Also, waiting for your list of 3 colleges you would like to compare GSR's of the student body to those of the hockey teams.........

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."

That seems to be a pretty good reason to me???? If ain't broke don't fix it??

 

[komey1]

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

The NCAA just released their APR (that's Academic Progress Rate for Osorojo) today. I did some quick looking. Admittedly, I don't know what the average score is, but Men's hockey scores as a whole seemed very good. The worst hockey score would be in the average for football and men's basketball.

 

[Caustic Undertow]

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

This thread has strayed from its topic, which is the question of whether or not college hockey needs or should pursue landscape change. The topic is now a troll. I am willing to entertain arguments for why I should not, for the first time in my years of posting here, simply delete the thread. I don't mind mindless drift, but this is just troll-fishing. It seems easier to take it out.

Does conversing with trolls who have no interest in reasonable conversation serve a useful purpose? Is actual relevant information being brought to the table that would not otherwise be revealed? Does it provide good exercise for those who wish to hone their written skills? Is it cathartic? Is it art?

Thoughts?

 

[jcarter7669]

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

This thread has strayed from its topic, which is the question of whether or not college hockey needs or should pursue landscape change. The topic is now a troll. I am willing to entertain arguments for why I should not, for the first time in my years of posting here, simply delete the thread. I don't mind mindless drift, but this is just troll-fishing. It seems easier to take it out.

Well point 1.) it kinda has to do with hockey growth, in that Osro was attempting to say that if it expanded it would be more prone to corruption that it is now. He failed, but it was somewhat on topic.

Point 2). in regards to deleting it, if you do Osro will pop up somewhere else and b.) what purpose does deleting serve? I mean if it isn't what you thought the thread would become you could certainly start a new one , and stay away from this one. Why delete this one? I don't understand the rationale?

 

[cycledown]

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

This thread has strayed from its topic, which is the question of whether or not college hockey needs or should pursue landscape change. The topic is now a troll. I am willing to entertain arguments for why I should not, for the first time in my years of posting here, simply delete the thread. I don't mind mindless drift, but this is just troll-fishing. It seems easier to take it out.

Does conversing with trolls who have no interest in reasonable conversation serve a useful purpose? Is actual relevant information being brought to the table that would not otherwise be revealed? Does it provide good exercise for those who wish to hone their written skills? Is it cathartic? Is it art?

Thoughts?

The thread has kinda trolled away BUT with all the new conference realignment being determined this week maybe the thread can evolve to a more positive discusssion. With the conferences taking their course maybe the BTHC may come into a whole new view, if college hockey is going to expand most certainly there will be a BTHC. IMO

 

[TimU]

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

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.

Nice try changing the subject again, but this is not what we are talking about. You claim that "dropout" levels under the existing system require the implementation of changes. That's what I called you on, and that's what you can't back up. If you want to accuse me of not wanting to change a functioning system that currently produces higher graduation rates and academic performance among athletes than among non-athletes based on nothing but your paranoid visions of the future, go ahead. Guilty as charged.

My name is on the list of people begging you to show evidence of an actual problem, based on actual numbers or examples, to suggest that the existing levels of oversight, enforcement, and transparency have led to an actual problem - even a minor one - in college hockey that needs fixing. You can't do it, so you repeatedly fall back on your ridiculous claims that it must be happening somewhere (even if we can't see it) and that everybody but you denies the possibility of it ever happening in the future.

 

[jcarter7669]

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

Nice try changing the subject again, but this is not what we are talking about. You claim that "dropout" levels under the existing system require the implementation of changes. That's what I called you on, and that's what you can't back up. If you want to accuse me of not wanting to change a functioning system that currently produces higher graduation rates and academic performance among athletes than among non-athletes based on nothing but your paranoid visions of the future, go ahead. Guilty as charged.

My name is on the list of people begging you to show evidence of an actual problem, based on actual numbers or examples, to suggest that the existing levels of oversight, enforcement, and transparency have led to an actual problem - even a minor one - in college hockey that needs fixing. You can't do it, so you repeatedly fall back on your ridiculous claims that it must be happening somewhere (even if we can't see it) and that everybody but you denies the possibility of it ever happening in the future.

Here Here

 

[LynahFan]

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

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.

Let's try another analogy. We have laws against littering, accompanied by relatively modest punishments (fines in the range of a few hundred dollars at most). Yet, some people still choose to litter. Does that necessarily mean the littering laws are failures, in need of massive overhaul and more stringent enforcement? Not at all. The goal of a littering law is not to ensure that every single person chooses not to litter - if it were, then perhaps the death penalty would perhaps be an appropriate punishment?

The goal of academic oversight, recruiting rules, monitoring of GSRs and APRs, and attendant sanctions and punishments for rules violations is NOT to ensure that every single hockey player chooses to stay in school for 4 years and earn a degree. The goal of such rules is to ensure that the group of athletes performs academically at least reasonably similarly to the overall group of students. Considering that the GSRs and APRs of college hockey players are nearly all equal to or better than their peers at the same institutions, I would have to say that the existing rules are wildly successful, and are therefore not in need of the radical changes you suggest.

If and when the numbers change, I would be the first person screaming loudly for overhaul of the rules. Until then, as jcarter7669 pointed out, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

[Osorojo]

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

This thread has strayed from its topic, which is the question of whether or not college hockey needs or should pursue landscape change. The topic is now a troll. I am willing to entertain arguments for why I should not, for the first time in my years of posting here, simply delete the thread. I don't mind mindless drift, but this is just troll-fishing. It seems easier to take it out.

Does conversing with trolls who have no interest in reasonable conversation serve a useful purpose? Is actual relevant information being brought to the table that would not otherwise be revealed? Does it provide good exercise for those who wish to hone their written skills? Is it cathartic? Is it art?

Thoughts?

"Troll" must refer to fans who cite GRR's for the class of 2000 (entered college in 1996)* and insist these numbers prove that college hockey hasn't recently changed for better or worse and won't change in the foreseeable future.

"Off topic" might pertain to fans who insist television programing and viewership haven't changed and won't no matter how many T.V. chanels become available to the public. The "off topic" conclusion is that T.V. has not and will not change college hockey for better or worse.

* NCAA GSR numbers require a nine year delay. 2010 graduation data not yet available to/entered into GSR's.

Sweet Dreams.

 

[komey1]

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

"Troll" must refer to fans who cite GRR's for the class of 2000 (entered college in 1996)* and insist these numbers prove that college hockey hasn't recently changed for better or worse and won't change in the foreseeable future.

"Off topic" might pertain to fans who insist television programing and viewership haven't changed and won't no matter how many T.V. chanels become available to the public. The "off topic" conclusion is that T.V. has not and will not change college hockey for better or worse.

* NCAA GSR numbers require a nine year delay. 2010 graduation data not yet available to/entered into GSR's.

Sweet Dreams.

Have you added anything new since you started? No.

GSR's measure a 7 year period - as was stated about a zillion times (not 9). Proving yet again you don't get it. If you WANT to argue that we need a system that measures players who graduate within 4 years, that's a differant story. But there are programs that are designed for a 5 year graduation as well (1 year co-op work experience). Also, I believe that people MAY be taking longer to graduate because they cannot afford to go full-time and have to go part time.

As for TV - I don't see a significant increase in TV stations interested in college hockey. And if the football and basketball conferences realign and bolt from the NCAA (it's a possibility), the only thing likely to be left is local TV, if anything. There just aren't enough viewers or corporate sponsers to justify national TV coverage.

 

[jcarter7669]

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

"Troll" must refer to fans who cite GRR's for the class of 2000 (entered college in 1996)* and insist these numbers prove that college hockey hasn't recently changed for better or worse and won't change in the foreseeable future.

.

GSR are available for 2009. They are the 2002 cohorts.....they started school in 2002. These numbers show that 85%+ in most cases of student athletes are graduating college. Your point has always been most hockey players aren't there to graduate. The facts, show you are wrong. Its that simple. Further if you track GSR's over the past 5 years you will see an increase in the number of graduates. Finally who cares if it is 4-6-9-15 years. They graduated and that's disproves your point that they aren't going to because they are too stupid to get more then a zero on the SAT's.

You are just ignorant, it's unreal. Take your delusion and head back down into the bomb shelter. Hopefully you have cable so you can watch the handfull of games that are televised and stay up to date with the retards on skates.

 

[Osorojo]

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

GSR are available for 2009. They are the 2002 cohorts.....they started school in 2002. These numbers show that 85%+ in most cases of student athletes are graduating college. Your point has always been most hockey players aren't there to graduate. The facts, show you are wrong. Its that simple. Further if you track GSR's over the past 5 years you will see an increase in the number of graduates. Finally who cares if it is 4-6-9-15 years. They graduated and that's disproves your point that they aren't going to because they are too stupid to get more then a zero on the SAT's.

You are just ignorant, it's unreal. Take your delusion and head back down into the bomb shelter. Hopefully you have cable so you can watch the handfull of games that are televised and stay up to date with the retards on skates.

Okay, they started school in 2002, not 1996. That makes 2002 the magic year for denying change to date and change in the future?
BTW: The NCAA lowered the required SAT score for college atletes - and athletic scholarships - to ZERO in 2009. One must pretend that change is inconsequential to buy the nonsense you are peddling.

 

[komey1]

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

Okay, they started school in 2002, not 1996. That makes 2002 the magic year for denying change to date and change in the future?
BTW: The NCAA lowered the required SAT score for college atletes - and athletic scholarships - to ZERO in 2009. One must pretend that change is inconsequential to buy the nonsense you are peddling.

But the APR will show if the students can do the work. If they fall below a certain level, the schools score gets lowered. It gets low enough, then the school will LOSE scholarships. Ask Syracuse basketball and Colorado football about that.

 

[jcarter7669]

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

Okay, they started school in 2002, not 1996. That makes 2002 the magic year for denying change to date and change in the future?
BTW: The NCAA lowered the required SAT score for college atletes - and athletic scholarships - to ZERO in 2009. One must pretend that change is inconsequential to buy the nonsense you are peddling.

Look at the GSR's for the 98 ,99,2000,01,02 cohorts and compare, BTW that would be the "graduating classes" of 09,08,07,06,05 and you will see an upward trend, ergo more and more student athletes are graduating. So no I'm not denying change, I'm denying that college hockey is getting worse as the numbers show it is getting better.

As for the future, well you are the only one that seems to be able to see into it so I will leave that to you and Ms. Cleo

Now, these numbers clearly can not take into account the NCAA's lowering of the SAT requirement, I will concede that point to you. Personally however, i don't think that will have an impact as they have stepped up enforcement of poor performing schools, and although the NCAA's have dumped the SAT the individual schools have not.

The point is, that at the current time college hockey is performing just fine. Will they in the future remains to be seen and no one is arguing they are exempt from corruption or poor academics in the future. But no one other they you believes that it is rampant at the current time, and the data bear that out.

If you want to continue to argue what may or may not happen I suggest this topic. Will BC win or not win the NC next year? You will make a lot more friends with that.

 

[Osorojo]

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

Look at the GSR's for the 98 ,99,2000,01,02 cohorts and compare, BTW that would be the "graduating classes" of 09,08,07,06,05 and you will see an upward trend, ergo more and more student athletes are graduating."

Graduating? Not necessarily. Read the NCAA's definition of their creation, the "GSR." Pay particular attention to the BOLD print.

"As for the future, well you are the only one that seems to be able to see into it so I will leave that to you and Ms. Cleo"

Speaking of magik powers, you offered to predict which three DI college hockey teams I would name. Well?

"Now, these numbers clearly can not take into account the NCAA's lowering of the SAT requirement, I will concede that point to you. Personally however, i don't think that will have an impact as they have stepped up enforcement of poor performing schools, and although the NCAA's have dumped the SAT the individual schools have not. "

Which individual schools have, and which have not dumped the SAT's? Or do you contend this information is as irrelevant as the NCAA's decision to mandate a ZERO percent success rate on SAT's for "student" athletes?

The point is, that at the current time college hockey is performing just fine. Will they in the future remains to be seen and no one is arguing they are exempt from corruption or poor academics in the future. But no one other they you believes that it is rampant at the current time, and the data bear that out.

"Uh, actually the leading published authorities on the relationship between college academics and college athletics agree with me. I have cited the names and websites of those institutions and authors. Don't you remember?"

"If you want to continue to argue what may or may not happen I suggest this topic. Will BC win or not win the NC next year? You will make a lot more friends with that."

I love the game, but I value excellence in education more than excellence in hockey. Whether or not any particular team wins the N.C. is much less important to me than whether the teams in contention maintained healthy academic and scholarship standards. I realize my attitude offends you.

 

[Dirty]

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

1. Learn to use multiquotes, you idiot.
2. Please kill yourself.
3. Your utter lack of brain power offends people. You are clearly the dumbest sack of monkey crap to ever post on this board. Seriously, please kill yourself. I will buy you the gun.

 

[jcarter7669]

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

I love the game, but I value excellence in education more than excellence in hockey. Whether or not any particular team wins the N.C. is much less important to me than whether the teams in contention maintained healthy academic and scholarship standards. I realize my attitude offends you.

Why do you assume the two are exclusive? WHy do you assume a hockey player can't excel at academics and hockey?

Can't a team win a NC while maintain academic standards? I mean heck both BC and BU have had a significant success in the past decade on the national level all while maintaining a GSR higher then that of the normal student body.

And for the record, you attitude doesn't offend me, what offends me is your unwillingness to accept the facts. If these teams showed a significant higher drop out rate then I would accept that. But they don't. BC doesnt have a much lower GSR then Providence or UML. My guess is it would be considerable higher actually. Why do you think that top colleges recruit top players that are both academically excellent as well athletically excellent?

 

[Osorojo]

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

1. Learn to use multiquotes, you idiot.
2. Please kill yourself.
3. Your utter lack of brain power offends people. You are clearly the dumbest sack of monkey crap to ever post on this board. Seriously, please kill yourself. I will buy you the gun.

Dirt: [I hope I may call you Dirt?]

I admit to being technologically handicapped. I have little ability and less desire to learn the technological intracacies of parsing quotes on this site, but I do have a wicked rink turn. Do you suppose RIT or RPI would admit me and grant me a hockey scholarship in the hopes my academic performance will improve?

PS: About the gun. Make it a Diana Grade Browning Superposed in 20 gague.
I'll forward the shipping details. Thanks.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

1. Learn to use multiquotes, you idiot.
2. Please kill yourself.
3. Your utter lack of brain power offends people. You are clearly the dumbest sack of monkey crap to ever post on this board. Seriously, please kill yourself. I will buy you the gun.

Dirty, I believe you have officially won the thread.

 

[TimU]

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

Do you suppose RIT or RPI would admit me and grant me a hockey scholarship in the hopes my academic performance will improve?

Definitely. Everyone knows that both those schools admit hockey players who submit SAT results of zero with their applications. I saw it right in the NCAA regulations. RPI will probably give you a car and pay someone to take all your tests for you, just like they did with that idiot Joe Juneau. He played in the NHL, you know - his grades must have been faked.