Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[jcarter7669]

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

I refuse to buy into the absurd excuse that college hockey is not and can not be influenced or victimized by the mindset, rules, or actions of other college sports or their governing body.

ADD boy, listen carefully. No one is saying or has said that college hockey can not be influenced in a manner as has been the case with other college sports. The argument is that it isn't a problem at the current time. It certainly could become a problem, but currently there are few people that thing it is a problem now, you being the only one I am aware of.

As for the "we're talking about hockey" evasion: I don't give much of a rat about big time college football or big time college basketball. I know how their recruitment and "college studies" are conducted. I'm afraid that the attitude and actions of other college sports programs are corrupting college hockey, and I'm convinced that ignorance is NOT bliss - in either college or college hockey.

"As for the "we're talking about hockey" evasion"

How is that an evasion. YOU are the one making the argument for college hockey and yet every shred of fact you bring up has to do with someother sport. You can't say that the NHL is viable because the NFL is doing great? They are separate thing. Make your arguments based on college hockey and you won't keep going through this. Ignorance may not be bliss, but delusion isn't reality either. The hair thin thread that holds your arguments together is astounding. With that type of logic you are a shoo in for President, or at the very least a Senator. And judging from past criteria maybe even a Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Osorojo]

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

ADD boy, listen carefully. No one is saying or has said that college hockey can not be influenced in a manner as has been the case with other college sports. The argument is that it isn't a problem at the current time. It certainly could become a problem, but currently there are few people that thing it is a problem now, you being the only one I am aware of.


"As for the "we're talking about hockey" evasion"

How is that an evasion. YOU are the one making the argument for college hockey and yet every shred of fact you bring up has to do with someother sport. You can't say that the NHL is viable because the NFL is doing great? They are separate thing. Make your arguments based on college hockey and you won't keep going through this. Ignorance may not be bliss, but delusion isn't reality either. The hair thin thread that holds your arguments together is astounding. With that type of logic you are a shoo in for President, or at the very least a Senator. And judging from past criteria maybe even a Nobel Peace Prize.

Let me try to discover where I went so wrong.

First, the facts:
(1)The NCAA has lowered the entrance requirements for any and all college athletes to an SAT score of 400 (?!). Is this correct?

(2) There is a pool of skilled, young hockey players out there who can not honestly achieve an SAT score much higher than 400.
Is this correct?

Next, my conclusions:

(1) There are some college HOCKEY programs which will avidly recruit talented hockey players with Sat scores nearing the 400 mark.
Is that correct?

(2) College students, including hockey players, with SAT scores in the 400's are unlikely to succeed in all but the worst academic colleges, unless they cheat.
Is that correct?

(3) Colleges which recruit and admit athletes (including hockey players) with SAT scores nearing 400 have little to do with compensatory education and a lot to do with trashing their own academic standards and reputation.

Last, a question. If you can provide a cogent answer to this one, I'LL SHUT UP!:

If a Division I hockey school refuses to recruit a hockey player who can't skate backwards why should a reputable college admit anybody with an SAT nearing 400?

P.S. - Is NOW the "current time?"

 

[LynahFan]

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

Let me try to discover where I went so wrong.

First, the facts:
(1)The NCAA has lowered the entrance requirements for any and all college athletes to an SAT score of 400 (?!). Is this correct?

Nope - wow, not off to a good start here. The NCAA has lowered the entrance requirement to 400 only for college athletes who have a 3.55 high school GPA - not "any and all."

(2) There is a pool of skilled, young hockey players out there who can not honestly achieve an SAT score much higher than 400.
Is this correct?

Objection. Supposition, your honor.

Show us some data. I honestly doubt there are too many college hockey prospects that have to cheat to get a 400.

Next, my conclusions:

(1) There are some college HOCKEY programs which will avidly recruit talented hockey players with Sat scores nearing the 400 mark.
Is that correct?

I don't believe that for one second. I think every single D-1 hockey coach would be very concerned and weigh very carefully the merits of recruiting a 400-scorer. I don't think there's a single program out there that would "avidly recruit" any such prospect, and certainly not an entire locker room full.

(2) College students, including hockey players, with SAT scores in the 400's are unlikely to succeed in all but the worst academic colleges, unless they cheat.
Is that correct?

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, when those same players had 3.5 GPAs in high school.

(3) Colleges which recruit and admit athletes (including hockey players) with SAT scores nearing 400 have little to do with compensatory education and a lot to do with trashing their own academic standards and reputation.

Yeah, Duke and Stanford have really trashed their academic reputations with all those low performing athletes. That is, it's quite possible for a school to have strong academic standards and reputation while simultaneously having athletes who perform at much lower standards than the general student population. Do 20 hockey players out of a student body of hundreds or thousands really spoil the whole barrel?

Last, a question. If you can provide a cogent answer to this one, I'LL SHUT UP!:

Yeah, I'm not buying this one, either.

If a Division I hockey school refuses to recruit a hockey player who can't skate backwards why should a reputable college admit anybody with an SAT nearing 400?

Because there's more to putting together a quality student body than simply picking the applicants who have the highest test scores. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as a college application and no need to participate in any non-academic pursuits - just write your SAT score on a postcard and send it in.

Gee, that was tough.

 

[Osorojo]

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

Nope - wow, not off to a good start here. The NCAA has lowered the entrance requirement to 400 only for college athletes who have a 3.55 high school GPA - not "any and all."


Objection. Supposition, your honor.

Show us some data. I honestly doubt there are too many college hockey prospects that have to cheat to get a 400.


Gee, that was tough

It's painfully obvious that LynahFan hasn't the foggiest idea of what an SAT score of 400 indicates: the tested individual did not answer a single question correctly.

An SAT score of "400" translates to a ZERO, zip, zilch, rien, nada, bupkiss. A 400 indicates that someone signed his/her name or made his/her mark, or someone did it for them - nothing more.

It's similary apparent that LynahFan and his ilk ignore irate parents and citizens who are concerned about the level of K-12 education in America today. If colleges approve of, recruit, and award scholarships to students with qualifying test scores of ZERO what does a 3.5 high school GPA signify?

Attitudes toward and practices of the NCAA and too many college athletic programs, including some hockey programs and hockey fans, are hostile toward education. For proof, see above; one of many defending ZERO test scores.

If you have the curiosity and the courage to learn what is actually going on
between academics and college sports (including hockey) please read the article cited below:

http://espn.go.com/columns/farrey_tom/1453693.html

 

[Osorojo]

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

"Because there's more to putting together a quality student body than simply picking the applicants who have the highest test scores."

The goal of colleges and universities is education, not "putting together a quality student body," if doing so requires admitting and providing scholarships to applicants who lack either the wits or the inclination to answer a SINGLE question on a qualifying exam. The results of such soft-headed thinking can be seen in today's (05/03) news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100602/ts_csm/304688

The reputation of American colleges and universities for producing graduates of academic excellence is declining in the rest of the world. I can identify attitudes, policies, and people who expedite this decline.

Gee, that was easy.

 

[LynahFan]

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

It's painfully obvious that LynahFan hasn't the foggiest idea of what an SAT score of 400 indicates: the tested individual did not answer a single question correctly.

An SAT score of "400" translates to a ZERO, zip, zilch, rien, nada, bupkiss. A 400 indicates that someone signed his/her name or made his/her mark, or someone did it for them - nothing more.

Right - as a matter of fact, I did know that. I've known that since around 1984, when my older brother took the PSAT for the first time. The "400 requirement" basically means that high school students with good enough GPAs don't have to take the test. Nobody is denying that or covering it up. So much for your gotcha moment.

The real question is, why do YOU think there are loads of blue chip hockey prospects out there who would need to cheat to "score much higher than a 400?"

2) There is a pool of skilled, young hockey players out there who can not honestly achieve an SAT score much higher than 400.

Where are all these dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks prospects who need to cheat to score higher than 400? And how many of them are actually interested in going to college (and dealing with the academics) when there's another very well-proven path for them to take to the NHL?

The 400 rule is for basketball and football, pure and simple. Those are the sports where 99.9% of athletes have to get into college to get to the pros, so that necessarily includes the dumbest ones, too. In hockey, there is a thriving alternative to college that has an even better track record than the NCAA for putting players in the NHL. Why would anyone who struggles to get a 500 SAT even WANT to play college hockey?

This is so NOT a problem for college hockey.

 

[LynahFan]

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

"Because there's more to putting together a quality student body than simply picking the applicants who have the highest test scores."

The goal of colleges and universities is education, not "putting together a quality student body," if doing so requires admitting and providing scholarships to applicants who lack either the wits or the inclination to answer a SINGLE question on a qualifying exam. The results of such soft-headed thinking can be seen in today's (05/03) news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100602/ts_csm/304688

The reputation of American colleges and universities for producing graduates of academic excellence is declining in the rest of the world. I can identify attitudes, policies, and people who expedite this decline.

Gee, that was easy.

That article doesn't make any sense at all. Here's an amazingly qualified candidate who can't find a job at an American university, so he had to go teach overseas. Guess what? That means American universities were hiring people better than this guy.

Another point in the article: as foreign universities get better, the best students stay home for school rather than coming to the US. How exactly is that caused by 58 American universities (out of the 4500+ in the US) recruiting 20 hockey players each?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

With football and basketball, things seem different from hockey because there isn't a readily available alternative for college-aged people to play sports but have difficulty with learning, unlike Major Juniors in Canada. Obviously there are some alternatives overseas, but distance and amount of available slots open creates an issue. Sure, you might see a player come out of high school or darn close to it (LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, don't know if any football players fit the bill), but if there was a major juniors equivalent for football or basketball, I think we would see a lot of players trying to go that route rather than college, and that would help weed out the issues with educational qualifications.

 

[TimU]

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

Last, a question. If you can provide a cogent answer to this one, I'LL SHUT UP!:

If a Division I hockey school refuses to recruit a hockey player who can't skate backwards why should a reputable college admit anybody with an SAT nearing 400?

Because there's more to putting together a quality student body than simply picking the applicants who have the highest test scores. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as a college application and no need to participate in any non-academic pursuits - just write your SAT score on a postcard and send it in.

Whoo hoo!

Glad to know you'll be shutting up now.

If you decide to go back on your word, I'm still waiting for you to show me where one single person - other than yourself - said that "college academic standards have been, are, and will remain exempt from corruption by college athletics, including college hockey."

 

[jcarter7669]

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

Let me try to discover where I went so wrong.

First, the facts:
(1)The NCAA has lowered the entrance requirements for any and all college athletes to an SAT score of 400 (?!). Is this correct?

(2) There is a pool of skilled, young hockey players out there who can not honestly achieve an SAT score much higher than 400.
Is this correct?

Next, my conclusions:

(1) There are some college HOCKEY programs which will avidly recruit talented hockey players with Sat scores nearing the 400 mark.
Is that correct?

(2) College students, including hockey players, with SAT scores in the 400's are unlikely to succeed in all but the worst academic colleges, unless they cheat.
Is that correct?

(3) Colleges which recruit and admit athletes (including hockey players) with SAT scores nearing 400 have little to do with compensatory education and a lot to do with trashing their own academic standards and reputation.

Last, a question. If you can provide a cogent answer to this one, I'LL SHUT UP!:

If a Division I hockey school refuses to recruit a hockey player who can't skate backwards why should a reputable college admit anybody with an SAT nearing 400?

P.S. - Is NOW the "current time?"

The biggest issue I have with this is you are inferring a student's success rate and to SAT scores and then linking this to corruption, cheating and overall lack of quality students. Why not stop looking at the entrance requirement and look at the GSR, in other words not how they start but how they finish? Might it be because the GSR rates don't actually back up your inferences. With the exception of 2-3 programs out of 58, hockey student atheletes maintain a GSR that is equal to or better then that of the general student body. That same student body that enters school with a higher SAT scores.


Nice talking to you, now keep to your word and shut up

 

[GoBucky36]

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

Im happy with college hockey just as it is. IMO, it doesnt, "need" to grow or change.
However, if more schools would like to get involved in hockey and have a demand for it (students who are good hockey players and want to play) and the money to build quality rinks and support hockey programs, Im all for it.
We're already seeing warm-weather schoools getting involved in hockey (the SEC is one example that comes to mind) and I think you will see college hockey grow in the coming years.
The only concern I would have is there being so many college hockey programs that the talent is really diluted to the point where the quality of the game suffers.
I dont think it would be very interesting to watch a game where each team only has 1 or 2 really good players and the rest are average at best.

 

[komey1]

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

One "problem" with growth is that if more football and basketball powers play, they have the potential to get good fast. Many of the current hockey powers like Miami, North Dakota, and Denver will not win a national title in any other major sport. (Ok - maybe not NEVER, but highly unlikely).

It would not happen overnight, but if a Tennesee or a Kentucky or a Syracuse started a program, with the resources they have, they could get pretty competitive in a few years.

 

[bronconick]

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

It's painfully obvious that LynahFan hasn't the foggiest idea of what an SAT score of 400 indicates: the tested individual did not answer a single question correctly.

An SAT score of "400" translates to a ZERO, zip, zilch, rien, nada, bupkiss. A 400 indicates that someone signed his/her name or made his/her mark, or someone did it for them - nothing more.

It's similary apparent that LynahFan and his ilk ignore irate parents and citizens who are concerned about the level of K-12 education in America today. If colleges approve of, recruit, and award scholarships to students with qualifying test scores of ZERO what does a 3.5 high school GPA signify?

Attitudes toward and practices of the NCAA and too many college athletic programs, including some hockey programs and hockey fans, are hostile toward education. For proof, see above; one of many defending ZERO test scores.

If you have the curiosity and the courage to learn what is actually going on
between academics and college sports (including hockey) please read the article cited below:

http://espn.go.com/columns/farrey_tom/1453693.html

Why the hell would a kid scoring 400 go to college when he can play hockey in Major Juniors and not go to class

Not only do you not know college hockey, you don't even understand the path to professional hockey as it currently stands in North America.

Don't buy next year's NHL hockey video game. I don't want you polluting some board asking where these "OHL and WHL" teams came from.

 

[Osorojo]

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

"The 400 rule is for basketball and football, pure and simple. Those are the sports where 99.9% of athletes have to get into college to get to the pros, so that necessarily includes the dumbest ones, too. In hockey, there is a thriving alternative to college that has an even better track record than the NCAA for putting players in the NHL. Why would anyone who struggles to get a 500 SAT even WANT to play college hockey?

"This is so NOT a problem for college hockey."

The 400 rule applies equally to college hockey, pure and simple. Anyone who struggles to obtain a higher than 400 (ZERO) on an SAT is probably naive enough to be tempted by offers of free tuition, college life, athletic glory and a trip to the pros in a couple of years or less. Anyone who is naive enough to believe college hockey will shun recruiting academic washouts probably did not attain an SAT of much over zero (400).

You are absolutely correct to declare this is not a problem for college hockey, and you absolutely do not understand my argument. This is a problem for academics and academic standards, not for college hockey. However, the NCAA "zero rule" permits college hockey programs to recruit
and subsidize players who would previously have gone to major juniors, hastening the day when college and junior hockey will be the same academically as well as athletically. Now that the obstacle of academic expectations has been removed perhaps college and junior hockey will merge, as was previously suggested.

BTW: All too commonly high schools award passing grades and diplomas to illiterate students. That's the heart of all the fuss about public education: the
3.5 grade point average in high school which conveys the same assurance of academic achievement as an SAT score of 400.

 

[4four4]

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

The only concern I would have is there being so many college hockey programs that the talent is really diluted to the point where the quality of the game suffers.
I dont think it would be very interesting to watch a game where each team only has 1 or 2 really good players and the rest are average at best.

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.

 

[4four4]

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

Why the hell would a kid scoring 400 go to college when he can play hockey in Major Juniors and not go to class.

Thats what I was thinking.

 

[komey1]

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

The 400 rule applies equally to college hockey, pure and simple. Anyone who struggles to obtain a higher than 400 (ZERO) on an SAT is probably naive enough to be tempted by offers of free tuition, college life, athletic glory and a trip to the pros in a couple of years or less. Anyone who is naive enough to believe college hockey will shun recruiting academic washouts probably did not attain an SAT of much over zero (400).

I disagree. Major juniors affords more games. And they would not need to go to class. A trip to the pros is just as quick with Major Juniors, if not quicker than with the NCAA.

You are absolutely correct to declare this is not a problem for college hockey, and you absolutely do not understand my argument. This is a problem for academics and academic standards, not for college hockey. However, the NCAA "zero rule" permits college hockey programs to recruit
and subsidize players who would previously have gone to major juniors, hastening the day when college and junior hockey will be the same academically as well as athletically. Now that the obstacle of academic expectations has been removed perhaps college and junior hockey will merge, as was previously suggested.

Who suggested that college hockey and junior hockey will merge? I would be surprised if that happened. And since you have stated (admitted) this was not a problem for college hockey, why do you keep repeating your arguement. You have not added anything new. No examples. No trends. Is this something that is REALLY happening, or are you raising the concern for a problem that currently does not exist.

BTW: All too commonly high schools award passing grades and diplomas to illiterate students. That's the heart of all the fuss about public education: the
3.5 grade point average in high school which conveys the same assurance of academic achievement as an SAT score of 400.

Passing grades are one thing - 3.5 is a whole lot of A's and B's. I would be surprised of those are just given away. Anyway, there is a place called "The Cafe" on these boards for this discussion. Feel free to post about this there.

 

[LtPowers]

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

Yo, isn't there another thread for this stuff? I thought this thread was about growing College Hockey.


Powers &8^]

 

[komey1]

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

Yo, isn't there another thread for this stuff? I thought this thread was about growing College Hockey.


Powers &8^]

Yes there is. Thread hijacking is prevelant here AND in the other thread.

 

[jcarter7669]

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

Well in all fairness I think Osrojojojojo was trying to make the point that if college grows it will be more susceptible to cheating, corruption, etc.

That said, his explanation skills are lacking, and since he is a self proclaimed educator I present that low GSR and low SAT scores are a problem because of OSrororojojoj and once he retires (goes away) all will be right in the world.