For D1 I like requiring in-conference transfers to sit out a year, but I'm fine with not having to sit out if you transfer to a different conference. I think all women's hockey conferences should adapt a policy that requires in-conference transfers to sit out a year, but let them play right away if they transfer to another conference. Then it would be one consistent, easy to understand policy across the board.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Transfers thread
- Thread starter Arafel
- Start date
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: Transfers thread
So, your defense is that your comment had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual subject of the thread and was just included for no real reason? Color me deeply skeptical about that. It looks like an attempt to dodge the obvious meaning of what you meant, which is that the loyalty of athletes that transfer is suspect. Worth noting is that that sentence was not the only mention of loyalty in the post I quoted. There was also, "Immediate play transfers also rub me the wrong way. It's yet another case where individual self-interest takes absolute priority over "old fashioned" values like loyalty."
You are very clearly implicating the loyalty of the athletes, and are now misrepresenting your statements in order to backtrack.
That isn't how they read at all. If you want to be perceived as non-judgmental, then you really need to avoid making obviously judgmental comments about loyalty. If you want to be perceived as non-judgmental, then don't judge someone as being motivated by self-interest.
Oddly enough, I never said that I disapprove of personal attacks. Whether I disapprove of specific personal attacks depends upon the context. In my initial post, I implied that I object to people taking it personally when an athlete decides to transfer. That isn't the same thing as objecting to a personal attack. After that, my objection was to you trying to pass off what are clearly personal attacks as being something else. I do also think that the personal attacks that you made are also inappropriate, but your denial that that's what they are was what I focused on.
Again, you are selectively quoting yourself, and ignoring that parts that don't fit with the story you are now trying to tell.
My problem is not really specific transfer rules, though I definitely think that once a player has graduated with a degree, all claim upon that player's athletic services by the school from which they have graduated should be extinguished, and they should be free to transfer any place they wish to go without restrictions. If the primary point of being a student-athlete is educational, as is claimed by pretty much everyone, then it's hard to see what justification there is for not allowing that. Placing restrictions on transfers at that point is about extending the power of the school at the expense of the student.
The real issue, though, is in the attitude that a significant minority of sports fans take towards athletes. This is not limited to college sports, though it is most noxious there. Your invocation of sports as an "escape from the business world" in the context of a discussion about an athlete's obligations and holding them to a higher standard is a prime example. It ignores the fact that, for the athletes, sports is the business world. All of the things that you feel that they should help you escape from are an inescapable piece of what sports is for them. Your plea that athletes hold themselves to a "higher standard than would be required by most other endeavors" is a plea that they set aside their own interests in ways that people do not do elsewhere, in order to reduce the stress in your life.
Stop thinking that making sports an escape from the business world is in any way their responsibility, because it isn't and arguments that it should be inherently mean that you think that you have a claim on their behavior. If you want sports to play that role in your life, then it is up to you to extract it.
So, your defense is that your comment had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual subject of the thread and was just included for no real reason? Color me deeply skeptical about that. It looks like an attempt to dodge the obvious meaning of what you meant, which is that the loyalty of athletes that transfer is suspect. Worth noting is that that sentence was not the only mention of loyalty in the post I quoted. There was also, "Immediate play transfers also rub me the wrong way. It's yet another case where individual self-interest takes absolute priority over "old fashioned" values like loyalty."
You are very clearly implicating the loyalty of the athletes, and are now misrepresenting your statements in order to backtrack.
That isn't how they read at all. If you want to be perceived as non-judgmental, then you really need to avoid making obviously judgmental comments about loyalty. If you want to be perceived as non-judgmental, then don't judge someone as being motivated by self-interest.
Says the poster who disapproves of personal attacks. At least you stopped short of demanding I head to a nursing home.
Oddly enough, I never said that I disapprove of personal attacks. Whether I disapprove of specific personal attacks depends upon the context. In my initial post, I implied that I object to people taking it personally when an athlete decides to transfer. That isn't the same thing as objecting to a personal attack. After that, my objection was to you trying to pass off what are clearly personal attacks as being something else. I do also think that the personal attacks that you made are also inappropriate, but your denial that that's what they are was what I focused on.
Again, you are selectively quoting yourself, and ignoring that parts that don't fit with the story you are now trying to tell.
My problem is not really specific transfer rules, though I definitely think that once a player has graduated with a degree, all claim upon that player's athletic services by the school from which they have graduated should be extinguished, and they should be free to transfer any place they wish to go without restrictions. If the primary point of being a student-athlete is educational, as is claimed by pretty much everyone, then it's hard to see what justification there is for not allowing that. Placing restrictions on transfers at that point is about extending the power of the school at the expense of the student.
The real issue, though, is in the attitude that a significant minority of sports fans take towards athletes. This is not limited to college sports, though it is most noxious there. Your invocation of sports as an "escape from the business world" in the context of a discussion about an athlete's obligations and holding them to a higher standard is a prime example. It ignores the fact that, for the athletes, sports is the business world. All of the things that you feel that they should help you escape from are an inescapable piece of what sports is for them. Your plea that athletes hold themselves to a "higher standard than would be required by most other endeavors" is a plea that they set aside their own interests in ways that people do not do elsewhere, in order to reduce the stress in your life.
Stop thinking that making sports an escape from the business world is in any way their responsibility, because it isn't and arguments that it should be inherently mean that you think that you have a claim on their behavior. If you want sports to play that role in your life, then it is up to you to extract it.
Blackbeard
Well-known member
Re: Transfers thread
The endless footwork in soccer can be of great benefit for those hockey goaltenders who play both sports.
The endless footwork in soccer can be of great benefit for those hockey goaltenders who play both sports.
wildcatcard
New member
Re: Transfers thread
AS someone who knows little about the national landscape of women's college hockey. I think the thing that annoys the above poster is this: SOME LITTLE D3 SCHOOL WHO PLAYS UP TO D1 IN BOTH MEN'S AND WOMEN'S HOCKEY HAS RECENTLY HAD GREAT SUCCESS ON THE NATIONAL STAGE IN WOMEN'S HOCKEY. THE BIG BOY SCHOOLS AND THE FOLLOWERS DON'T LIKE IT. THEREFORE, THOSE FOLLOWERS FEEL THAT SOMETHING "DIRTY, ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL" IS GOING ON IN NORTHERN NEW YORK.
AS someone who knows little about the national landscape of women's college hockey. I think the thing that annoys the above poster is this: SOME LITTLE D3 SCHOOL WHO PLAYS UP TO D1 IN BOTH MEN'S AND WOMEN'S HOCKEY HAS RECENTLY HAD GREAT SUCCESS ON THE NATIONAL STAGE IN WOMEN'S HOCKEY. THE BIG BOY SCHOOLS AND THE FOLLOWERS DON'T LIKE IT. THEREFORE, THOSE FOLLOWERS FEEL THAT SOMETHING "DIRTY, ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL" IS GOING ON IN NORTHERN NEW YORK.
One point that we're all forgetting, me included, is that a student who has completed her undergraduate degree at one school and then applies and gets accepted at another school for her graduate studies is not a transfer student. She is simply a grad school applicant at whatever schools she applies to. I'd say once a student-athlete has completed her undergraduate degree she has also completed her commitment to whatever sports team(s) she has played for and been loyal to through graduation at that particular school. She no longer owes that team any further commitment or loyalty. She is free to move on and do whatever she pleases wherever she pleases, without guilt or regret. Our job as hockey fans is simply to support her choice by congratulating her and wishing her well wherever she goes!
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Transfers thread
Hockey East has this policy but the schools have the ability to waive it, as they have with transfers going to Merrimack and Holy Cross, which is nice to see.
EDIT: Personally I'm all for removing all transfer restrictions, but it's clearly good in this case that the schools worked toward helping Merrimack and Holy Cross start up their programs (as well as help the players who would get more playing time by transferring there).
Hockey East has this policy but the schools have the ability to waive it, as they have with transfers going to Merrimack and Holy Cross, which is nice to see.
EDIT: Personally I'm all for removing all transfer restrictions, but it's clearly good in this case that the schools worked toward helping Merrimack and Holy Cross start up their programs (as well as help the players who would get more playing time by transferring there).
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
Re: Transfers thread
More likely what's annoying the poster is a Winnie the Pooh character...
AS someone who knows little about the national landscape of women's college hockey. I think the thing that annoys the above poster is this: SOME LITTLE D3 SCHOOL WHO PLAYS UP TO D1 IN BOTH MEN'S AND WOMEN'S HOCKEY HAS RECENTLY HAD GREAT SUCCESS ON THE NATIONAL STAGE IN WOMEN'S HOCKEY. THE BIG BOY SCHOOLS AND THE FOLLOWERS DON'T LIKE IT. THEREFORE, THOSE FOLLOWERS FEEL THAT SOMETHING "DIRTY, ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL" IS GOING ON IN NORTHERN NEW YORK.
More likely what's annoying the poster is a Winnie the Pooh character...
Re: Transfers thread
The transfer discussion is pretty simple! Nothing changes from the original recruiting decision once a player arrives on campus....the coaching staff has to continue to want the player and the player has to continue to believe that the school is the best fit academically and athletically.
In virtually all of the mentioned transfers, we know little if anything about the facts behind the decision...only speculation.
The scholarships for most teams (believe it depends on the conference) are one year committments and that is what is required on either side. Things are fluid from year to year in the world of college hockey and academics, so I have no problem with transfers...some voluntary and maybe some encouraged in certain ways by the team.
Players beware, the grass may not be much greener but these young players need to be happy to perform their best.
The transfer discussion is pretty simple! Nothing changes from the original recruiting decision once a player arrives on campus....the coaching staff has to continue to want the player and the player has to continue to believe that the school is the best fit academically and athletically.
In virtually all of the mentioned transfers, we know little if anything about the facts behind the decision...only speculation.
The scholarships for most teams (believe it depends on the conference) are one year committments and that is what is required on either side. Things are fluid from year to year in the world of college hockey and academics, so I have no problem with transfers...some voluntary and maybe some encouraged in certain ways by the team.
Players beware, the grass may not be much greener but these young players need to be happy to perform their best.
And to clarify again, any players going to grad school at a different school than where they earned their undergrad degree are NOT transfer students.
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: Transfers thread
No. They still have only four. However, some athletes, like Sauve, redshirted for a season, and still have a year of eligibility left after graduating in four. And, because athletes have to be enrolled over the summer in order to use athletic department facilities, they sometimes graduate in three years.
No. They still have only four. However, some athletes, like Sauve, redshirted for a season, and still have a year of eligibility left after graduating in four. And, because athletes have to be enrolled over the summer in order to use athletic department facilities, they sometimes graduate in three years.
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
Most of it, yes!
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: Transfers thread
Not really. Shelfit is expressing an opinion that graduate transfers shouldn't be considered transfers, an opinion that I happen to agree with, but the NCAA disagrees with us on that:
So, the graduate transfer rules are somewhat different than those for other transfers, but it's still the same basic framework.
More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, some of the posters think that these still constitute transfers.
Not really. Shelfit is expressing an opinion that graduate transfers shouldn't be considered transfers, an opinion that I happen to agree with, but the NCAA disagrees with us on that:
So, the graduate transfer rules are somewhat different than those for other transfers, but it's still the same basic framework.
More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, some of the posters think that these still constitute transfers.
Basically the official paperwork is about getting an athletic release from your undergraduate institution in order to move forward and be an athlete at your new grad school. The point remains that it is not the same as the stereotypical and much more common transfer student that is still an undergrad going from one school to another while still pursuing their bachelor's degree.
wildcatcard
New member
Re: Transfers thread
Maybe the Non-Easternschools should improve the academics at those institutions.
Maybe the Non-Easternschools should improve the academics at those institutions.
ZedLeppelin
Motormouth
Re: Transfers thread
This is pretty much my opinion on post-grad transfers, too, in a nutshell.
As shelfit said, she's done her time at her original school, finished her degree, and now she's basically a free agent. I say thanks for your time and commitment, and best of luck in the future.
This is pretty much my opinion on post-grad transfers, too, in a nutshell.
As shelfit said, she's done her time at her original school, finished her degree, and now she's basically a free agent. I say thanks for your time and commitment, and best of luck in the future.
Re: Transfers thread
All of us are members of groups, not just athletes. Within those groups, each of us has every right to act in our self-interest. I have no problem with concept of putting on one's own oxygen mask before attempting to assist others. Saying that people act in their self-interest isn't an insult or an attack, it's a description of reality. Get angry and defensive if you want. But these days most people openly take pride in acting in their self-interest.
It's inevitable that self-interest will play a role. The only question is how much.
It's equally self-evident that our individual actions can impact others in the group/company/team. All I've asked is that impact be given some consideration; that self-interest not be the only relevant variable. Asking people to open their minds and consider other factors? Perhaps a challenge, but definitely not an attack.
I don't regard my posts on this thread as perfectly crafted. But I most certainly did not call out any individual athlete for transferring. And if my attitude toward athletes as a group was somehow unclear before, the above clarification should satisfy any fair-minded reader.
Of course you are not a fair-minded reader.
When I've participated in sports, one of my favorite things about it was the bond between teammates, during competition and otherwise. When I've participated as player's parent, I've taken a lot of satisfaction in supporting the whole team, not just my own kid. In other words, cheering for the other players; sharing the experience with the other parents. But believe me, stress relief has nothing to do with it. Being a player's parent has proven to be much more stressful than being an athlete ever was. And yet, I love it.
I understand & fully accept that the connection with a D-1 athlete is much more limited than with a family member. For my part, I don't make any effort to pal around with the Buckeye players or their parents. And yet, I care about the quality of their experience, and support them within the limits of the role I've chosen.
Maintaining a connection to a world where teammates and loyalty still count for something is my escape; that's the element I'm trying to protect. I want today's kids to have the same positive experience I had -- be they family members in high school sports or D-1 Buckeyes. Is that really so evil?
That's something truly worth defending, IMHO. But you seem utterly detached from what I feel is central to the experience. On this last point, I'm not offended. Baffled would be more like it.
Not backtracking. My opinion continues to be that our society tends to undervalue loyalty. However: I do not believe that athletes are worse than other groups, and I didn't say that. In fact, athletes value loyalty more than other groups. At least that was my experience at the modest levels I competed at. More on that below.
All of us are members of groups, not just athletes. Within those groups, each of us has every right to act in our self-interest. I have no problem with concept of putting on one's own oxygen mask before attempting to assist others. Saying that people act in their self-interest isn't an insult or an attack, it's a description of reality. Get angry and defensive if you want. But these days most people openly take pride in acting in their self-interest.
It's inevitable that self-interest will play a role. The only question is how much.
It's equally self-evident that our individual actions can impact others in the group/company/team. All I've asked is that impact be given some consideration; that self-interest not be the only relevant variable. Asking people to open their minds and consider other factors? Perhaps a challenge, but definitely not an attack.
I don't regard my posts on this thread as perfectly crafted. But I most certainly did not call out any individual athlete for transferring. And if my attitude toward athletes as a group was somehow unclear before, the above clarification should satisfy any fair-minded reader.
Of course you are not a fair-minded reader.
You are wildly wrong about my motivation for being involved in sports. Not that I gave you enough information to draw legitimate conclusions on that point; I didn't. But again, you just assume whatever you want because you like knocking over the straw man.
When I've participated in sports, one of my favorite things about it was the bond between teammates, during competition and otherwise. When I've participated as player's parent, I've taken a lot of satisfaction in supporting the whole team, not just my own kid. In other words, cheering for the other players; sharing the experience with the other parents. But believe me, stress relief has nothing to do with it. Being a player's parent has proven to be much more stressful than being an athlete ever was. And yet, I love it.
I understand & fully accept that the connection with a D-1 athlete is much more limited than with a family member. For my part, I don't make any effort to pal around with the Buckeye players or their parents. And yet, I care about the quality of their experience, and support them within the limits of the role I've chosen.
Maintaining a connection to a world where teammates and loyalty still count for something is my escape; that's the element I'm trying to protect. I want today's kids to have the same positive experience I had -- be they family members in high school sports or D-1 Buckeyes. Is that really so evil?
That's something truly worth defending, IMHO. But you seem utterly detached from what I feel is central to the experience. On this last point, I'm not offended. Baffled would be more like it.
You two guys need to get a room (or at least start a separate thread for just the two of you)! Your love-hate relationship reminds me too much of a couple of my former teammates....not a good situation. Not to mention that your posts are now far too long (long-winded) to bother reading fully or at all anymore.