Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[Osorojo]

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

I stand corrected. You are correct, the GSR is actually exactly what you are looking for......the % of students that fail out. So when the same number of students fail out of a non-scholarship hockey program as a scholarship program.....how does that fit into your argument again? Wait, what exactly is your argument again..hockey is bad and only retards can be student athletes?

Yup. The GSR is not based upon the number or percentage of college athletes who graduate in four years, seven years, or any other number of years. You must admit the title "GRADUATION success rate" is deceiving, probably deliberately so.

How the "GSR" relates to one-and-out (or two-and-out, or three-and-out) college hockey player is best answered by fans of those programs suffering regular and significant depletions of their rosters to early departures. I believe there are several such programs.

The "good standing" stipulation is also subject to closer scrutiny. For example, it may be that pro proprospects are more likely to carry a reduced schedule than the rest of the student body, or they may gravitate to courses which are less academically demanding. A twelve hour schedule composed of courses such as "playground recreation" and correspondance courses in "music appreciation" - even without cheating on tests - could conceivably insure academic good standing in the absence of any legitimate
education. Of course such a lack of academic progress would be further transformed into "graduation success" via the NCAA rule.

 

[jcarter7669]

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

Yup. The GSR is not based upon the number or percentage of college athletes who graduate in four years, seven years, or any other number of years. You must admit the title "GRADUATION success rate" is deceiving, probably deliberately so.

How the "GSR" relates to one-and-out (or two-and-out, or three-and-out) college hockey player is best answered by fans of those programs suffering regular and significant depletions of their rosters to early departures. I believe there are several such programs.

The "good standing" stipulation is also subject to closer scrutiny. For example, it may be that pro proprospects are more likely to carry a reduced schedule than the rest of the student body, or they may gravitate to courses which are less academically demanding. A twelve hour schedule composed of courses such as "playground recreation" and correspondance courses in "music appreciation" - even without cheating on tests - could conceivably insure academic good standing in the absence of any legitimate
education. Of course such a lack of academic progress would be further transformed into "graduation success" via the NCAA rule.

Oh good grief. While you are correct that the GSR is both those students that graduated as well as those that quit because they are in good standing, you still fail.

Your argument is and has been that NCAA hockey is headed down hill due to poor students with zero sat scores being allowed in and failing out. The GSR does reflect student athletes that do not make it due to POOR academic standing and it doesn't support your argument. GIVE IT UP MAN !!

 

[TimU]

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

For example, it may be that pro proprospects are more likely to carry a reduced schedule than the rest of the student body, or they may gravitate to courses which are less academically demanding.

It may be that pro prospects are carrying a more demanding schedule than the rest of the student body and gravitating to courses that are more academically demanding.

The universities must be hiding that fact in order to make it appear that their stupid non-athletes actually have brains, as evidenced by their failure to publish the schedules and GPAs of all non-athletes. Cheaters.

 

[Osorojo]

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

It may be that pro prospects are carrying a more demanding schedule than the rest of the student body and gravitating to courses that are more academically demanding.

The universities must be hiding that fact in order to make it appear that their stupid non-athletes actually have brains, as evidenced by their failure to publish the schedules and GPAs of all non-athletes. Cheaters.

I envy your faith in the ethics and actions of large corporations, including colleges, universities, and athletic governing bodies.

To paraphrase H.L. Menkin: Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the ethics of college sports programs.

 

[Dirty]

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

I like this one better: No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of Osorojo.

It's much truer to the original quote.

You can't figure out how the gun works, can you? That's why you're still here, isn't it?

 

[komey1]

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

I think his strategy to win the arguement is to just keep at it denying the facts until everyone gives up.

 

[Runninwiththedogs]

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

The "good standing" stipulation is also subject to closer scrutiny. For example, it may be that pro proprospects are more likely to carry a reduced schedule than the rest of the student body, or they may gravitate to courses which are less academically demanding. A twelve hour schedule composed of courses such as "playground recreation" and correspondance courses in "music appreciation" - even without cheating on tests - could conceivably insure academic good standing in the absence of any legitimate
education. Of course such a lack of academic progress would be further transformed into "graduation success" via the NCAA rule.

NEWS FLASH.

Many non student-athletes ALSO TAKE COURSES THAT ARE LESS ACADEMICALLY DEMANDING. It's called getting a management major. Or communications.

 

[Dirty]

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

I think his strategy to win the arguement is to just keep at it denying the facts until everyone gives up.

I won't give up until his family is Gary Colemaning him.

 

[LynahFan]

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

I think his strategy to win the arguement is to just keep at it denying the facts until everyone gives up.

That might work in February. But it's the offseason - no free pass for him now!

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

That might work in February. But it's the offseason - no free pass for him now!

By all means, keep going, people. It's nice to have a good laugh after the work day.

 

[Osorojo]

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

I think his strategy to win the arguement is to just keep at it denying the facts until everyone gives up.

Facts? I have presented a slew of facts which document change in college hockey, including: lowering of minimum entrance standards, increase in players turning pro, widespread early departures, rising ticket prices, record attendance games, increased clothing and accessories profits, the spread of hockey into new geographic regions, changes in TV programming, accessible channels, and viewership, increasing parity between Division I and Major Junior hockey, misleading and flawed academic success measurements, and increasing quality of U.S. born hockey prospects.

You can deny conclusions about the changes these facts have and will produce. Your claim that no facts have been presented which indicate change only proves you have not been paying attention. You who deny change have a problem. It's tough to come up with facts to prove a negative: the absence of change. Your recourse is to attack a positive, the current and future nature of change in college hockey - and of course to attack the character, intelligence, and morals of those who disagree with you.

Ultimately all must submit to the tyranny of the majority, no matter how misguided: "College hockey is not changing significantly at present and there is no evidence that it will do so in the future." I hope I correctly state the position of the majority. If I am wrong about what I am wrong about please correct me.

"e pur, si muove"

 

[FireKnight]

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

The "good standing" stipulation is also subject to closer scrutiny. For example, it may be that pro proprospects are more likely to carry a reduced schedule than the rest of the student body, or they may gravitate to courses which are less academically demanding. A twelve hour schedule composed of courses such as "playground recreation" and correspondance courses in "music appreciation" - even without cheating on tests - could conceivably insure academic good standing in the absence of any legitimate
education. Of course such a lack of academic progress would be further transformed into "graduation success" via the NCAA rule.

I think you see much more of this in football and roundball. There were a good number of pro prospects at Clarkson when I was an undergrad and they took the same classes that we did, although sometimes taking 12 instead of 15 hours. They generally were not engineering majors but they did take real courses rather than "underwater basketweaving". (On a personal note, being in a project group with Todd White was a great experience. He didn't have the time that most of the rest of us had but he always did his share and did it very well.)

A good coach will not only develop the hockey player but also instill the understanding that even the best prospect can lose his career in a heartbeat. They should take advantage of the $50,000 annual payment they are receiving to play hockey and earn credits to a "fallback" career.

 

[LynahFan]

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

Facts? I have presented a slew of facts which document change in college hockey, including: lowering of minimum entrance standards, increase in players turning pro, widespread early departures, rising ticket prices, record attendance games, increased clothing and accessories profits, the spread of hockey into new geographic regions, changes in TV programming, accessible channels, and viewership, increasing parity between Division I and Major Junior hockey, misleading and flawed academic success measurements, and increasing quality of U.S. born hockey prospects.

Saying that things exist without backing them up is not "presenting a fact." Of this list, the only fact I recognize is the lowering of the entrance requirements, which I really doubt will affect college hockey at all. Hockey prospects who score 450 on the SAT will continue to go to Juniors, same as they always have. The 400 rule is for college basketball and football, where the guys who score 450 still really do want to go to college, since there is no other credible development league.

As for the rest: what evidence have you presented of rising ticket prices, increased clothing and accessories profits, or changes in TV viewership? None. When's the last time hockey expanded into a new geographic region - 15 years ago? Finally, "increasing parity" and "increasing quality" and "flawed academic success measurements" are all subjective opinions, not facts.

Ultimately all must submit to the tyranny of the majority, no matter how misguided: "College hockey is not changing significantly at present and there is no evidence that it will do so in the future." I hope I correctly state the position of the majority. If I am wrong about what I am wrong about please correct me.

Nope - I think you have it wrong. I think the majority believes: "Although college hockey is always changing, there is no evidence that the current pace of change will result in noticeably reduced academic performance of the players, nor will it interfere with the overall academic mission of the universities which sponsor D-1 hockey. Furthermore, the checks that are already in place to monitor the players and the universities are adequate to detect whether infractions have occurred and appropriate measures are already available to sanction underperforming schools and players. Therefore, no drastic changes are currently required in the administration and structure of college hockey."

 

[beaverhockeyfan]

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

I think the increase of of players turning pro may have more to do with the NHL CBA that is in place than this whole "flunking out" arguement. When a player decides to go pro dictates their maximum rookie contract terms and when they can become a free agent down the road. I know if I was a sophomore in school and someone came and offered me close to a million dollars to do my "job", I would have bolted.

As for players leaving school, that happens in the general student population as well, probably at a higher percentage than scholarship athletes. I can think of at least a couple of dozen people that I went to school with that never got their degrees. I can only think of a couple of Bemidji State Hockey players that didn't graduate since BSU has been D-I.

 

[BeaverFan]

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

I think the increase of of players turning pro may have more to do with the NHL CBA that is in place than this whole "flunking out" arguement. When a player decides to go pro dictates their maximum rookie contract terms and when they can become a free agent down the road. I know if I was a sophomore in school and someone came and offered me close to a million dollars to do my "job", I would have bolted.

As for players leaving school, that happens in the general student population as well, probably at a higher percentage than scholarship athletes. I can think of at least a couple of dozen people that I went to school with that never got their degrees. I can only think of a couple of Bemidji State Hockey players that didn't graduate since BSU has been D-I.

Very true. Keep in mind that these student athletes are getting more academic attention than your average college students. The players that I know/have known have very strict schedules regarding study time with tutors, also academic progress reports given to coaches before each away series.

Hockey is a motivation for them to keep up there work in the classroom, so they can do their work on the ice as well!

 

[Osorojo]

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

Saying that things exist without backing them up is not "presenting a fact." Of this list, the only fact I recognize is the lowering of the entrance requirements, which I really doubt will affect college hockey at all. Hockey prospects who score 450 on the SAT will continue to go to Juniors, same as they always have. The 400 rule is for college basketball and football, where the guys who score 450 still really do want to go to college, since there is no other credible development league.

As for the rest: what evidence have you presented of rising ticket prices, increased clothing and accessories profits, or changes in TV viewership? None. When's the last time hockey expanded into a new geographic region - 15 years ago? Finally, "increasing parity" and "increasing quality" and "flawed academic success measurements" are all subjective opinions, not facts.


Nope - I think you have it wrong. I think the majority believes: "Although college hockey is always changing, there is no evidence that the current pace of change will result in noticeably reduced academic performance of the players, nor will it interfere with the overall academic mission of the universities which sponsor D-1 hockey. Furthermore, the checks that are already in place to monitor the players and the universities are adequate to detect whether infractions have occurred and appropriate measures are already available to sanction underperforming schools and players. Therefore, no drastic changes are currently required in the administration and structure of college hockey."

L.F. : Thank you for correcting me and explaining what I was wrong about being wrong about. Wow! Even accepting your negative premise is tricky business. On the bright side, your contention that academic performance in college hockey has not and will not deteriorate is endorsed by a majority of the denizens of this site and by historical precedent. Some decades ago the majority of Division I football and basketball fans advanced the same argument which you advance above. Today these fans are either content with the product of their lack of foresight and prevention, or they accept the present state of Div. I football and basketball as inevitable (and profitable.) Better yet, the size of that majority far exceeded the size of the majority of posters on this site.

Actually, I feel much more at ease now that I accept your premise that bad things are not and will not happen to college hockey. [Hope I got it right this time?] Shedding accountability is so liberating!

 

[HoosierBBall_GopherHockey]

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

L.F. : Thank you for correcting me and explaining what I was wrong about being wrong about. Wow! Even accepting your negative premise is tricky business. On the bright side, your contention that academic performance in college hockey has not and will not deteriorate is endorsed by a majority of the denizens of this site and by historical precedent. Some decades ago the majority of Division I football and basketball fans advanced the same argument which you advance above. Today these fans are either content with the product of their lack of foresight and prevention, or they accept the present state of Div. I football and basketball as inevitable (and profitable.) Better yet, the size of that majority far exceeded the size of the majority of posters on this site.

Actually, I feel much more at ease now that I realize how retarded I am when it comes to anything college hockey. [Hope I got it right this time?] Yes, I believe I did. Admitting I'm a tool that does not listen to anyone is so liberating!

FYP.

 

[komey1]

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

Facts have been presented that have dissented from your view. GSRs are better for hockey players than they used to be and most are as good IF NOT BETTER than the general student body. The Academic Progress Report shows that hockey schools are generally good.

Plus - you have not discounted the Juniors route many pro prospects.

You present the fact that zero SAT these students are allowed - which NOBODY has disputed. Yet you have taken tangents and present statements that have no backing.

 

[Osorojo]

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

Facts have been presented that have dissented from your view. GSRs are better for hockey players than they used to be and most are as good IF NOT BETTER than the general student body. The Academic Progress Report shows that hockey schools are generally good.

Plus - you have not discounted the Juniors route many pro prospects.

You present the fact that zero SAT these students are allowed - which NOBODY has disputed. Yet you have taken tangents and present statements that have no backing.

Hey, you can stop. After careful consideration I have decided my doubts about college hockey present and future were unfounded, and I agree completely with my former adversaries. Everything about college hockey standards and enforcement is swell and will be into the foreseeable future. Laissez faire hockey is the only way to go: the status quo is fine, there's no need to change regualtions or enforcement, Division I hockey will police itself, the talent will trickle down. After all, look at the spectacular results laissez faire policy has produced for Wall Street, banking, the housing market, public health, coal mine safety, the oil industry, fraud prevention, etc.

Laissez faire college hockey rules!

 

[HoosierBBall_GopherHockey]

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

Hey, you can stop. After careful consideration I have decided my doubts about college hockey present and future were unfounded, and I agree completely with my former adversaries. Everything about college hockey standards and enforcement is swell and will be into the foreseeable future. Laissez faire hockey is the only way to go: the status quo is fine, there's no need to change regualtions or enforcement, Division I hockey will police itself, the talent will trickle down. After all, look at the spectacular results laissez faire policy has produced for Wall Street, banking, the housing market, public health, coal mine safety, the oil industry, fraud prevention, etc.

Laissez faire college hockey rules!