Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[amherstblackbear]

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

That's a completely unrealistic situation to hope for. One or two schools aren't going to join up because their travel costs would suck abysmally, and they won't generate a bandwagon effect for hockey at Florida, for instance, unless Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama show up on the schedule, not Miami (OH), Alabama-Huntsville and Boston College.

And to expect for a conference like the PAC-10 or SEC to say "Hey, why don't we get a bunch of us to play hockey in a SEC/PAC-10 league" when BCS conferences in the Midwest and Northeast like the Big-10 and Big East don't mandate it yet (if ever) is so far off the reservation it defies rational belief.

Odds are if it ever reaches that point, I'll have lost interest in college hockey due to WMU folding out of the destroyed remnants of the CCHA, and your Pioneers will be soldiering on in mid-major obscurity in the weakened WCHA while USC's players (being paid more than most minor league players, so they stay all 4 years) matchup with Minnesota for the national title played in the Rose Bowl.

Be careful what you wish for.

Yup.

I think the fallacy is that college hockey can add without subtracting. Even if the sport goes national, it will either (1) stay below 70 teams due to contraction, or (2) necessitate a class division similar to FBS/FCS.

Scr3w that.

 

[Puck Swami]

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

You know - the one and two year talented hockey dropouts we read so much about.

"Dropout" implies a lack of academic capability. We've been down this road before. You are assuming these kids who leave early for other hockey are bad students or can't handle college work. 80% of college hockey players DO graduate. And of the 20% who don't graduate (i.e. go pro or go junior or quit hockey), almost all of them leave school in good academic standing. In short, I would estimate perhaps 10 players a year in D-I college hockey have any academic issues at all, compared to the rest of the 1,600 players who play at the D-I level who can handle school just fine. That's less than 1% of players.

For example, all three of Denver's 'early' departures this year (Colborne, Wiercioch and Cheverie) were not only in good standing, they were all WCHA all-academic team members. Cheverie even accelerated to graduate in three years. For every early departure like BU's Chris Bourque who 'couldn't handle college', there are many more like Colborne, Cheverie or Jonathan Toews at UND who were fine students before they left college.

College hockey just does not have serious academic issues.

 

[TimU]

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

If you're really that smart you will refuse all offers of athletic scholarships and attend a school that makes you pay based on your family's financial means relative to the amount of aid available to the general student population. Also, the only reason for a college or university to provide an athletic scholarship to a player is that the player is stupid and otherwise academically unqualified. Therefore, all scholarship athletes are admitted in spite of their obvious academic failings and do not care whether or not they graduate.

 

[LynahFan]

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

If you're really that smart you will refuse all offers of athletic scholarships and attend a school that makes you pay based on your family's financial means relative to the amount of aid available to the general student population. Also, the only reason for a college or university to provide an athletic scholarship to a player is that the player is stupid and otherwise academically unqualified. Therefore, all scholarship athletes are admitted in spite of their obvious academic failings and do not care whether or not they graduate.

Sigh. I really need to give out a lot more rep so I have some in reserve for awesome posts like this.

Well done, sir!

 

[WildKitty]

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

TimU: I mostly agree (not that anyone cares... ) I have this to mention:

Not all student-athletes who get scholarship money are morons who wouldn't be accepted into school on academic merit alone. Many are. But some aren't.

Also, schools use their budget to get the best players, academically sound or otherwise. Most kids, they'll go where the money's at, not where they have to pay, usually even if Mumzy and Diddums are the US Mint. Or the EU Mint... To not offer athletic scholarships is to lose excellent recruits to opposing schools because of their scholarship programs. If all of Hockey East stopped offering $$, it'd be interesting to see who goes where. More westerners would likely stay out west, and fewer townies would stay at home, no matter the legacy their family has with the school. I think of this a little like the nuclear disarmament. We'll get rid of ours when you get rid of yours.

Also for consideration: How many matriculated athletes are there who owe their college degree to their scholarship? I'm not talking the pros here!

Should college hockey grow? Sure, why not, there's no such thing as too much hockey, in my book.

Does it need change? I think well-considered and democratic change can refresh the oldest institution. I also think you shouldn't mess with a good thing. Make of that what you will.

 

[CLS]

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

Somewhere I heard that there are 300,000 college athletes and almost all of them are going pro in something other than sports! Anybody else heard that?

 

[Osorojo]

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

I know quite a few two and done players that were very good students while they were in school. Just because someone doesn't graduate before playing pro hockey doesn't mean they are not good students.

I did not mean to imply that all recipients of athletic scholarships are poor students, but I apparently did imply just that. I apologize.

At the same time, it is painfully evident that some holders of athletic scholarships do not belong in college, such as those who cheat on music appreciation tests online. These scholarships were awarded and the cheating condoned to win games, not to promote learning.

Those who flatly deny any misuse of scholarships or academic cheating in college hockey programs would have us believe they are fully informed about the inner workings of every college hockey program all the time. This is a highly unlikely assumption. The NCAA and colleges can no longer refuse to release reports to the public of academic cheating by athletic programs. Fans should not despair if the alleged academic purity of all college hockey programs turns out to be wishful thinking, even if such reports erode the skill level of college hockey.

 

[TimU]

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

At the same time, it is painfully evident that some holders of athletic scholarships do not belong in college, such as those who cheat on music appreciation tests online. These scholarships were awarded and the cheating condoned to win games, not to promote learning.

. . . and some students who are not holders of athletic scholarships do not belong in college, such as those who cheat on tests, don't go to class, and fail all their classes. Others have already pointed out to you that academic performance of D1 hockey players is generally HIGHER than that of the general student population.

Those who flatly deny any misuse of scholarships or academic cheating in college hockey programs would have us believe they are fully informed about the inner workings of every college hockey program all the time. This is a highly unlikely assumption. The NCAA and colleges can no longer refuse to release reports to the public of academic cheating by athletic programs. Fans should not despair if the alleged academic purity of all college hockey programs turns out to be wishful thinking, even if such reports erode the skill level of college hockey.

And as soon as a problem is evident, the people with whom you're arguing will be the first to insist that it get cleaned up. In the meantime, you're trying to manufacture a problem that does not appear to exist in college hockey.

 

[CLS]

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

I did not mean to imply that all recipients of athletic scholarships are poor students, but I apparently did imply just that. I apologize.

At the same time, it is painfully evident that some holders of athletic scholarships do not belong in college, such as those who cheat on music appreciation tests online. These scholarships were awarded and the cheating condoned to win games, not to promote learning.

Those who flatly deny any misuse of scholarships or academic cheating in college hockey programs would have us believe they are fully informed about the inner workings of every college hockey program all the time. This is a highly unlikely assumption. The NCAA and colleges can no longer refuse to release reports to the public of academic cheating by athletic programs. Fans should not despair if the alleged academic purity of all college hockey programs turns out to be wishful thinking, even if such reports erode the skill level of college hockey.

I haven't seen anyone flatly deny any misuse of scholarships or academic cheating. Nor have I seen anyone deny that some holders of athletic scholarships do not belong in college. Puck Swami gave one example, but also gave examples of some players who signed with professional teams but were also good students. While that's anecdotal, at least it is about hockey players at a school that sponsors a Division I hockey team. The examples offered in your post are about football players at a school that does not sponsor a Division I hockey team.

I don't deny any misuse of scholarships or academic cheating. I don't claim to be fully informed about the inner workings of every hockey program all the time. I do, however, agree with Puck Swami that it is not a serious problem in college hockey. I believe that it is not anywhere near the problem it is in college football or basketball, and that college hockey does not deserve the guilt by association it's getting with the online music appreciation examples.

 

[WildKitty]

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

Osorojo - you tried to address this on your own thread, and it flopped. You obviously haven't listened to anything anyone told you in that thread, because you're still spouting the same and similar irrelevant information as nonsequiter proof of your argument. The horse is dead. Put down the stick.

Can we talk about coaching changes?

 

[Osorojo]

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

Osorojo - you tried to address this on your own thread, and it flopped. You obviously haven't listened to anything anyone told you in that thread, because you're still spouting the same and similar irrelevant information as nonsequiter proof of your argument. The horse is dead. Put down the stick.

Can we talk about coaching changes?

Wiki: Far from "flopping" the "Reforming College Hockey" thread currently runs to 40 pages and 781 posts; most of them deliberately off-topic in an apparently desperate effort to end discussion of the topic. There has even emerged an unprovoked "Son of Reforming College Hockey " thread which continues the denials and evasions of the first thread, which obviously touched a very tender nerve in Division I hockey fans.
The history of human competition in games and sports, from hopscotch to horse racing, is infested with cheating. College hockey fans continue to insist that their sport is somehow immune from academic/recruiting cheating. How quaint.

 

[Puck Swami]

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

College hockey fans continue to insist that their sport is somehow immune from academic/recruiting cheating. How quaint.

College hockey is not immune from academic or recruiting cheating. It has happened before and it will happen again - human beings are involved and no one is perfect.

That said, the incidence rates of known academic and recruiting cheating or fraud remain very, very small in NCAA hockey, especially when compared with NCAA D-I basketball and football.

 

[joecct]

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

College hockey is not immune from academic or recruiting cheating. It has happened before and it will happen again - human beings are involved and no one is perfect.

That said, the incidence rates of known academic and recruiting cheating or fraud remain very, very small in NCAA hockey, especially when compared with NCAA D-I basketball and football.

Less money involved = less cheating??

 

[LynahFan]

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

There has even emerged an unprovoked "Son of Reforming College Hockey " thread which continues the denials and evasions of the first thread, which obviously touched a very tender nerve in Division I hockey fans.

Um, no - your lack of evidence and persistent spouting of anecdotes from college football and basketball touched tender nerves in logical, rational people.

The history of human competition in games and sports, from hopscotch to horse racing, is infested with cheating. College hockey fans continue to insist that their sport is somehow immune from academic/recruiting cheating. How quaint.

I'm pretty sure that not one single person said that hockey is immune from problems. What we've all been pretty universally saying is that the problems are not nearly severe enough to justify killing college hockey and replacing it with semi-pro hockey. You simply do not have the evidence to convince anyone otherwise.

 

[Osorojo]

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

Um, no - your lack of evidence and persistent spouting of anecdotes from college football and basketball touched tender nerves in logical, rational people.


The topic here is "Does it [college hockey] need change? I contend that college hockey is changing and will continue to change, whether we like it or not. Prudence compels assessment of current and future problems and plans to deal with them so that inevitable change will follow a desirable path rather than a random path.

In years gone by there was far less incentive for institutionalized cheating in college football programs. It's fair to assume before the change to multi-million dollar pro football drafts and multimillion dollar college football TV contracts that incentives for and engagement in academic fraud by college football programs were much less common. Precisely the same conditions, results, and conclusions apply to the changes endured by college basketball.

Today, hockey exhibits most of the patterns of change which football and bashetball underwent a few decades ago. Pro hockey has expanded greatly. Pro hockey salaries and signing bonuses have skyrocketed. More pro prospects are recruited by college programs and more college players are leaving school early to go pro. Big arenas are hosting college hockey games and drawing bigger crowds. More money is changing hands. There is a high probability that college hockey is undergoing changes much like college football and basketball underwent. There is a high probability that college hockey also is suffering and will continue endure a change for the worse in the incentives for and frequency of academic cheating. The past, even if it happened to different people and to different sports, does provide guidance.

Changes continue, willynilly. Recognizing change and planning to deal with the problems it raises is superior to denial, no matter how credulous and quaint that denial may be.

 

[Patman]

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

Um, no - your lack of evidence and persistent spouting of anecdotes from college football and basketball touched tender nerves in logical, rational people.

The topic here is "Does it [college hockey] need change? I contend that college hockey is changing and will continue to change, whether we like it or not. Prudence compels assessment of current and future problems and plans to deal with them so that inevitable change will follow a desirable path rather than a random path.

In years gone by there was far less incentive for institutionalized cheating in college football programs. It's fair to assume before the change to multi-million dollar pro football drafts and multimillion dollar college football TV contracts that incentives for and engagement in academic fraud by college football programs were much less common. Precisely the same conditions, results, and conclusions apply to the changes endured by college basketball.

Today, hockey exhibits most of the patterns of change which football and bashetball underwent a few decades ago. Pro hockey has expanded greatly. Pro hockey salaries and signing bonuses have skyrocketed. More pro prospects are recruited by college programs and more college players are leaving school early to go pro. Big arenas are hosting college hockey games and drawing bigger crowds. More money is changing hands. There is a high probability that college hockey is undergoing changes much like college football and basketball underwent. There is a high probability that college hockey also is suffering and will continue endure a change for the worse in the incentives for and frequency of academic cheating. The past, even if it happened to different people and to different sports, does provide guidance.

Changes continue, willynilly. Recognizing change and planning to deal with the problems it raises is superior to denial, no matter how credulous and quaint that denial may be.

Keep flogging that horse man... keep flogging that horse.

 

[LynahFan]

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

Today, hockey exhibits most of the patterns of change which football and bashetball underwent a few decades ago. Pro hockey has expanded greatly.

The NHL hasn't expanded since 2004, and isn't going to any time in the near future.

Pro hockey salaries and signing bonuses have skyrocketed.

Actually, no - the last CBA that took effect in 2005 (following a lockout) installed a hard salary cap, reduced the rookie maximums, etc. Salaries skyrocketed from 1990 through 2003, but it's been fairly level since the lockout.

More pro prospects are recruited by college programs and more college players are leaving school early to go pro.

Source? Quantify? More than the 1960s? Sure. More than the 1990s? By a significant enough margin to establish a trend?

Big arenas are hosting college hockey games and drawing bigger crowds. More money is changing hands.

Again, source? Quantify? Are we talking about an increase in total college hockey revenue from $100M to $110M or from $500M to $1B? If there were anywhere NEAR the kind of money in hockey that is causing problems in basketball and football, then schools would be falling all over themselves to add hockey teams. That is not even close to happening - in fact, there is still real danger that there will be contraction in the future (see BGSU, UAH).

There is a high probability that college hockey is undergoing changes much like college football and basketball underwent. There is a high probability that college hockey also is suffering and will continue endure a change for the worse in the incentives for and frequency of academic cheating. The past, even if it happened to different people and to different sports, does provide guidance.

No, no, and no. When someone is bidding $785M per year to broadcast the NCAA ice hockey tournament and there is no viable alternative to NCAA hockey as a route to the pros, please get back to us. Until then, NCAA ice hockey is nothing like basketball or football, and their experience provides no guidance.

Changes continue, willynilly. Recognizing change and planning to deal with the problems it raises is superior to denial, no matter how credulous and quaint that denial may be.

You've already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're not willing to listen to credulous information that doesn't support your ideas - no need to put it down in black and white.

 

[Osorojo]

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

You've already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're not willing to listen to credulous information that doesn't support your ideas - no need to put it down in black and white.[/QUOTE]

I could not agree more with the above quote. You said it!

[check definition of "credulous"]

 

[LynahFan]

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

You've already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're not willing to listen to credulous information that doesn't support your ideas - no need to put it down in black and white.

I could not agree more with the above quote. You said it!

[check definition of "credulous"]

Heh - I learned something there.

(but I think you should check the definition, too - a denial cannot be credulous)

 

[Osorojo]

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

Heh - I learned something there.

(but I think you should check the definition, too - a denial cannot be credulous)

But a denial can contain assertions which rely upon credulous assumptions, such as, "Unlike other college sports, college hockey is and will remain immune to corruption."