Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[komey1]

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

Are you saying there are Division I schools that do NOT give hockey scholarships?
This is outrageous! These schools probably don't even differentiate between athlete and non-athlete scholars, which gives the school a huge advantage recruiting hockey players and clearly incites recruiting violations and academic fraud. Has the NCAA heard about this inequity?
Dang holier-than-thou eggheads!

RIT cannot because they are a DIII school playing up. I don't see where they get any kind of advantage in not offering scholarships. The closest thing I can think of is that if a player does not work out, he still has his aid, whereas if a hockey player ON athletic scholarship does not work out, he could lose his scholarship.

 

[Osorojo]

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

RIT cannot because they are a DIII school playing up. I don't see where they get any kind of advantage in not offering scholarships. The closest thing I can think of is that if a player does not work out, he still has his aid, whereas if a hockey player ON athletic scholarship does not work out, he could lose his scholarship.

Sorry, Komey 1. I was just trying to gain the approval of the lurkers on this site. The suggestion that awarding hockey (vs academic) scholarships gave schools a recruiting advantage and encouraged academic fraud was reviled as absolutely untrue. The logical conclusion is that the opposite of an opinion that is entirely wrong must be pretty much right; thus my suggestion that schools that do NOT award hockey (vs academic) "scholar"ships (vs "hockey"ships) must enjoy an advantage in recruiting hockey players, and this same scholarship policy must incite academic fraud.

Imagine my consternation to discover that I was wrong no matter what opinion I proposed. It was like attempting to reason with a petulant adolescent: anything you say is wrong.

 

[TimU]

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

The suggestion that awarding hockey (vs academic) scholarships gave schools a recruiting advantage and encouraged academic fraud was reviled as absolutely untrue.

Once again: NO IT WASN'T.

It was like attempting to reason with a petulant adolescent: anything you say is wrong.

Actually, you haven't attempted to reason with anybody. You advanced an argument without any support, and when others provided tangible evidence to refute it, you started inventing opposing viewpoints that were easier to discount.

I will agree that most of what you've said is wrong.

 

[LynahFan]

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

Sorry, Komey 1. I was just trying to gain the approval of the lurkers on this site. The suggestion that awarding hockey (vs academic) scholarships gave schools a recruiting advantage and encouraged academic fraud was reviled as absolutely untrue. The logical conclusion is that the opposite of an opinion that is entirely wrong must be pretty much right; thus my suggestion that schools that do NOT award hockey (vs academic) "scholar"ships (vs "hockey"ships) must enjoy an advantage in recruiting hockey players, and this same scholarship policy must incite academic fraud.

Imagine my consternation to discover that I was wrong no matter what opinion I proposed. It was like attempting to reason with a petulant adolescent: anything you say is wrong.

I'm pretty sure this is the first time you've brought up the topic of "scholarships = recruiting advantage." Well, no kidding. Finally, you've written something I agree with!

I think it's also the first time you've suggested that awarding hockey scholarships encourages academic fraud. Up to this point, my understanding of your tortured argument was that you believed as the money the schools receive from the hockey program (via ticket sales, merchandising, TV rights, etc) increases, then there would be increased pressure for academic fraud. The schools that award athletic scholarships have been doing it for decades (except, I think, St. Lawrence and perhaps Colgate, who only started awarding them recently), so there's essentially nothing new going on in the athletic scholarship department, nor will there be in the foreseeable future. So how will continuing to award scholarships (as has been done for decades) make things worse in the future?

 

[Osorojo]

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

I'm pretty sure this is the first time you've brought up the topic of "scholarships = recruiting advantage." Well, no kidding. Finally, you've written something I agree with!

I think it's also the first time you've suggested that awarding hockey scholarships encourages academic fraud. Up to this point, my understanding of your tortured argument was that you believed as the money the schools receive from the hockey program (via ticket sales, merchandising, TV rights, etc) increases, then there would be increased pressure for academic fraud. The schools that award athletic scholarships have been doing it for decades (except, I think, St. Lawrence and perhaps Colgate, who only started awarding them recently), so there's essentially nothing new going on in the athletic scholarship department, nor will there be in the foreseeable future. So how will continuing to award scholarships (as has been done for decades) make things worse in the future?

Upper Alumi:

You have a good start in recognizing the inequities in recruiting which athletic scholarships create. Next, consider the inequities created by awarding scholarships to athletes rather than students with superior academic credentials. Of course this is an issue only if you believe the purpose of a college is excellence in academic education, not mediocrity or worse in academics for the sake of a winning team.
Finally, you should consider the explosion in diversity of T.V. programming, the inevitable changes in economics it will bring to "minor" sports, and the recent expansion of hockey out of its traditional northeast/northern tier area (remember the six teams?) into the deep South and the far West. These changes WILL force college hockey to face the same temptations for corruption of scholarships, recruiting, and academics which face major
college sports. There is no reason to believe college hockey will successfully resist these temptations, namecalling trolls notwithstanding.

 

[Runninwiththedogs]

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

I'm sorry, is Clem Haskins looking for a coaching job at your rival school or something, Osorojo?

 

[beaverhockeyfan]

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

Just a quick question here since there seems to be a lot of talk about athletic scholarships.

How many hockey institutions out there use tax payer monies to fund athletic scholarships?

I know in Minnesota, schools that are part of the MnSCU System (St. Cloud, Mankato and Bemidji being the hockey playing ones) are forbidden to use any of their State Funding (ie, tax payer monies) on athletic scholarships. All athletic scholarships have to be raised through fund raising efforts/profits brought in by the teams themselves. I will admit I am not sure how it works with The University System (Twin Cities and Duluth campuses).

Since my donations to BeaverPride help fund scholarships for the Bemidji State student-athletes, I am more than happy with they type of student-athletes the hockey team is getting*. But that is my choice to make that donation and if I ever get displeased with the type of student they are bringing in, I can just stop my donation. If it was my tax dollars going into "the pot", then I don't have a choice and I would probably be more concerned about this whole issue. But right now, ehh.......

*BSU consistently lead the CHA in the number of players named to the CHA All Academic Team. In most cases if a player wasn't on it, they were a freshman (not eligible) or there was a ton of volunteer work/interning going on.

 

[Dirty]

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

Just put the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. It's not that hard.

 

[komey1]

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

Just put the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. It's not that hard.

Not for nothing, don't say that. Back when RIT was in their DIII days, there was a poster who was a troublemaker and some people said that. That person did kill themselves. While we all disagreed with nearly everything that he posted, we still felt bad about comments like what you posted.

 

[komey1]

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

You have a good start in recognizing the inequities in recruiting which athletic scholarships create. Next, consider the inequities created by awarding scholarships to athletes rather than students with superior academic credentials. Of course this is an issue only if you believe the purpose of a college is excellence in academic education, not mediocrity or worse in academics for the sake of a winning team.

Colleges don't just look at test scores to determine who should be admitted. Many if not all of them also look at other things, such as music or sports. Tests and grades are never the end-all of college admissions. If it were, why do they have essay questions or ask about other things that you do on the application if all they care about are grades and SAT scores?

Finally, you should consider the explosion in diversity of T.V. programming, the inevitable changes in economics it will bring to "minor" sports, and the recent expansion of hockey out of its traditional northeast/northern tier area (remember the six teams?) into the deep South and the far West. These changes WILL force college hockey to face the same temptations for corruption of scholarships, recruiting, and academics which face major
college sports. There is no reason to believe college hockey will successfully resist these temptations, namecalling trolls notwithstanding.

There are more stations, and more diverse TV programming. But you still need viewers. I don't know who watches some of the channels like Speed. But I don't see an increase in college hockey on National TV. In fact, I would bet when CBS bought out CSTV and made it CBS College Sports, the amount of hockey shown on that channel went DOWN.

There has been RECENT expansion? Is your definition of recent 10 years? It's been that long since the NHL expanded. Maybe your definition is greater since you mention the six teams. And their TV coverage is not so great (Versus anyone?, NBC starting games of the week after half the season is over). Also, college hockey has not expanded into any of the outposts that are mentioned. Additions like Robert Morris and RIT have been balanced with contraction of schools such as Fairfield and Iona - and all are within the Northeast area that you mentioned. There are tons of club teams in the other areas, but not varsity.

 

[LynahFan]

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

Upper Alumi:

You have a good start in recognizing the inequities in recruiting which athletic scholarships create. Next, consider the inequities created by awarding scholarships to athletes rather than students with superior academic credentials. Of course this is an issue only if you believe the purpose of a college is excellence in academic education, not mediocrity or worse in academics for the sake of a winning team.
Finally, you should consider the explosion in diversity of T.V. programming, the inevitable changes in economics it will bring to "minor" sports, and the recent expansion of hockey out of its traditional northeast/northern tier area (remember the six teams?) into the deep South and the far West. These changes WILL force college hockey to face the same temptations for corruption of scholarships, recruiting, and academics which face major
college sports. There is no reason to believe college hockey will successfully resist these temptations, namecalling trolls notwithstanding.

Well, we just disagree, then. There are ~4500 degree-granting institutions of higher education in the US. Guess, what? 50% of them are below average! Therefore, it's inherently incorrect to say that the goal of every single institution should be "excellence in academic education." They cannot all be "excellent," nor should they strive to be, nor do they - at least, not in the sense you're using the term. The US has need of many different kinds of colleges and universities. Goodness knows the LAST thing we need is 4500 Harvards running around the US!

At the risk of inviting a GPA-measuring contest, I consider myself to have been an "excellent" student in the classroom, and I'm glad Cornell gave me a fantastic academic education. But you know what? I'm also REALLY glad that Cornell felt it was important to have a nationally competitive hockey team, because that enriched the college experience for me and for thousands of other students, not just the 22 guys on the team. There's no reason to buy into your ridiculous false dichotomy that schools can focus only on academics or only on athletics, but can never have both.

 

[Osorojo]

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

Well, we just disagree, then. There are ~4500 degree-granting institutions of higher education in the US. Guess, what? 50% of them are below average! Therefore, it's inherently incorrect to say that the goal of every single institution should be "excellence in academic education." They cannot all be "excellent," nor should they strive to be, nor do they - at least, not in the sense you're using the term. The US has need of many different kinds of colleges and universities. Goodness knows the LAST thing we need is 4500 Harvards running around the US!

At the risk of inviting a GPA-measuring contest, I consider myself to have been an "excellent" student in the classroom, and I'm glad Cornell gave me a fantastic academic education. But you know what? I'm also REALLY glad that Cornell felt it was important to have a nationally competitive hockey team, because that enriched the college experience for me and for thousands of other students, not just the 22 guys on the team. There's no reason to buy into your ridiculous false dichotomy that schools can focus only on academics or only on athletics, but can never have both.

Lynah Fan: I'm hoping you are a fan rather than a graduate. It's about logic. The fact that half of any population is by definition below average is absolutely no reason to endorse below average performance or behavior. I attended classes with several members of Cornell's first national championship hockey team. To the best of my knowledge none of these guys got a free ride either financially or academically. They conformed to the pursuit of academic excellence, which you seem to trivialize with a feeble statistical excuse and fatally flawed logic.

 

[Dirty]

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

So you're older than dirt. That means you'll die soon. Best news I've heard all week.

 

[komey1]

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

They conformed to the pursuit of academic excellence, which you seem to trivialize with a feeble statistical excuse and fatally flawed logic.

NOBODY is saying that the pursuit of academic excellance is a bad thing.

What you are not getting (maybe you are just too old to get it), is that hockey players are CURRENTLY among the best and brightest STUDENTS based on every report available. What proof can you offer that these are flawed?

 

[LynahFan]

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

Lynah Fan: I'm hoping you are a fan rather than a graduate. It's about logic. The fact that half of any population is by definition below average is absolutely no reason to endorse below average performance or behavior. I attended classes with several members of Cornell's first national championship hockey team. To the best of my knowledge none of these guys got a free ride either financially or academically. They conformed to the pursuit of academic excellence, which you seem to trivialize with a feeble statistical excuse and fatally flawed logic.

There's nothing to endorse or not endorse: it's a fact. Accept it or live in fantasy land.

You want an example of fatally flawed logic? How about: The fact that hockey players get scholarships PROVES that they are lousy students who don't belong at the school in the first place.

Oops - except that a higher proportion of them graduate than their non-athletic peers. One beautiful theory blown out of the water by ugly facts.

 

[Osorojo]

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

So you're older than dirt. That means you'll die soon. Best news I've heard all week.

Hey, Dirt, three of your past four posts mention death or shooting people and anticipate these events with relish. You're a profiler's dream.

All you whippersnappers are so busy denying change that you can't (or refuse to) recognize it while it takes place under your nose. Even more dismal is your insistence that change will not occur in the future so there is no use in trying to anticipate change or plan to shape future changes.

At least you are confident and happy in your self-imposed youthful ignorance.

"Where ignorance is bliss, . . . "

 

[HoosierBBall_GopherHockey]

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

Hey, Dirt, three of your past four posts mention death or shooting people and anticipate these events with relish. You're a profiler's dream.

All you whippersnappers are so busy denying change that you can't (or refuse to) recognize it while it takes place under your nose. Even more dismal is your insistence that change will not occur in the future so there is no use in trying to anticipate change or plan to shape future changes.

At least you are confident and happy in your self-imposed youthful ignorance.

"Where ignorance is bliss, . . . "

Good God you're dense. I think the strawman you constructed shot himself about two weeks ago. College hockey will cross that bridge when/if it comes to it. Why make changes if the current system is not broken...

 

[Craig P.]

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

Blocksi is right as usual. I can add the following points:

The biggest change in getting more collegians into the NHL is when more ex-college players move into senior management of NHL teams as GMs and Director's of Player Personnel/Scouting. These guys tend to prefer what they know, and will tap their college networks, just as the Major Junior grads who run NHL teams do now in tapping their junior networks.

They don't even have to be ex-players, as long as they have a proper appreciation for college as a place to get talent. (And I do have someone in mind who may end up in senior management someday.)

 

[Dirty]

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

I plan on throwing a party when you stop posting/die, so of course I anticipate these events with relish. It will be a wonderful day. If you're afraid of using a gun, you could OD or jump off a bridge. Any option would be better than your continued posting.

 

[unhpuckfan2001]

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

I can't believe this thread is still going.

Stop trying to reason with Osorojo, it simply won't work.

*sighs*