PDA

View Full Version : The myth of "non-scholarship" programs



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

joecct
03-31-2012, 05:30 PM
I assume Union's ducks are in order, right? Scholarships for Canadian athletes are what got Geneseo, Potsdam, and Buff State in big trouble with the NCAA a few years back. Or do you think there should be some nervous folks in the AD in Schenectady? :eek:IF, and this is what got the SUNY's in trouble, the vast proportion of financial aid packages to foreigners go to athletes then you have an instance of "athletic grants in aid" which are a no-no for a D-III school.

For example, you have 30 Canadians at your school all receiving financial aid. 29 of them are athletes. This sets off a red light.


No self-respecting duck would ever live in Schenectady. :D
But nobody can find a Colonie of them in Troy, either.

kdilks
03-31-2012, 05:31 PM
Yes, but Ivy rules forbid graduate students, period. There have been many cases (the ones I know of are lacrosse) where an Ivy player only dresses varsity for his final 3 years (or has a year off for medical reasons), and then plays the next year for another university while working on his grad degree.

Yeah, it's called the graduate transfer exception, where you don't have to sit out a year if you're switching schools because you've graduate undergrad and are pursuing post-graduate school. It's been happening with more frequency in college football the past few years, to the point where the SEC no longer allows the graduate transfer exception. With Russel Wilson exploiting this at Wisconsin last year, I assumed it was relatively common knowledge.

My point was that, contrary to the post I was responding to, it's not like this is preventing somebody that didn't do varsity sports in undergrad from having a full 4 years of eligibility at grad school. You're almost always only talking about 1 year of eligibility, and it's generally not to the team's advantage to get a player that's only going to be around for one year, nor to the student's advantage to be distracted by athletics during their first year of graduate school at an Ivy.

Happy
03-31-2012, 09:11 PM
So, to put it in layman's terms, if your parents are not wealthy, and you play hockey for Union, you do not pay anywhere near the full published tuition cost.

Osorojo
03-31-2012, 09:44 PM
I'm guessing if your parents are not wealthy and you satisfy some stringent entrance requirements and are admitted by Union you do not pay anywhere near the full published tuition cost whether or not you play hockey or the tuba or anything else.

joecct
03-31-2012, 09:50 PM
Let me clarify.. What got a bunch of D-III schools in trouble was something called a Canadian Student Incentive Grant (or similar words). It usually was around $10K / year. What the NCAA found was that almost all the CSIG's went to athletes and that made it a no-no.

ADK11
03-31-2012, 10:10 PM
I assume Union's ducks are in order, right? Scholarships for Canadian athletes are what got Geneseo, Potsdam, and Buff State in big trouble with the NCAA a few years back. Or do you think there should be some nervous folks in the AD in Schenectady? :eek:Former Union president Roger Hull was around when the "international scholarship" was setup about 10 years ago. Hull was many things, most of them unprintable on this board IMO, but he was absolutely obsessed that nothing would ever be done on his watch that could be perceived as giving hockey team members any advantage. The scholarship is therefore open to all foreign students and my understanding is that only a small number are awarded over any 4 year period and that only a relatively small percentage of those are given to hockey players. My feeling is that nobody at Union is worrying about this.

..which of course is not to say that the hockey programs didn't "encourage" establishing this scholarship program. Prior to this it was nearly impossible for Union to offer any significant financial aid to foreign students. Think about that for a few seconds.. say you were a Union coach over 10 years ago who actually found a good Canadian Jr. A player with good enough grades to get into Union and was actually interested in trying to help a program that seldom won more than 10 games a year.. and your closing pitch is that IF he is admitted to Union he & his parents will have to pay or take out loans of $200k+.. versus getting a full ride all expenses scholarship to XYZ (or RPI) University! This goes a long way to explaining why Union had such a hard time attracting more than 1-2 good D-1 recruits in any given year and mostly sucked for their first 15 years in D-1.

And the bottom line is that even today, the best thing Union coaches (or the financial aid office) can tell potential recruits is that they can apply for financial aid and they "should" get it. That's way different than telling a recruit they will definitely have an athletic scholarship if they commit.

RSTuthill
03-31-2012, 10:22 PM
Former Union president Roger Hull was around when the "international scholarship" was setup about 10 years ago. Hull was many things, most of them unprintable on this board IMO, but he was absolutely obsessed that nothing would ever be done on his watch that could be perceived as giving hockey team members any advantage. The scholarship is therefore open to all foreign students and my understanding is that only a small number are awarded over any 4 year period and that only a relatively small percentage of those are given to hockey players. My feeling is that nobody at Union is worrying about this.
I am unconvinced. Union's trajectory of success in hockey dates to the exact time this program was established. There is a singularity in the W-L timeline slope at that point

Agree on the observations on Hull, btw. Does not take away from the fact that Union is a very special place, however. And he did copy Trinity and clean up and gentrify the decaying neighborhood to the west of campus all the way down to the new soccer field.

Muskieman
03-31-2012, 10:56 PM
I am unconvinced. Union's trajectory of success in hockey dates to the exact time this program was established. There is a singularity in the W-L timeline slope at that point

Agree on the observations on Hull, btw. Does not take away from the fact that Union is a very special place, however. And he did copy Trinity and clean up and gentrify the decaying neighborhood to the west of campus all the way down to the new soccer field.

On another note, the President of the Garnet Blades (i.e., Union's Booster Club) was interviewed by TWC during one of the intermissions of game 2 of the RPI-Union playoff series and stated that the Blades were founded 10 years ago, donated $125K to Union Hockey last season, and that they expected to donate nearly $150K this year. This translates to a lot of money for recruiting, among other things. Union, and its fans/boosters, have made a big-time commitment to hockey and it's paying off. Good for them, I hope they win it all. I saw them whitewash SLU 6-0 at Achilles and came away saying it was the best Union team I'd ever seen and that they could do some real damage in the NCAA's.

ADK11
03-31-2012, 11:47 PM
On another note, the President of the Garnet Blades (i.e., Union's Booster Club) was interviewed by TWC during one of the intermissions of game 2 of the RPI-Union playoff series and stated that the Blades were founded 10 years ago, donated $125K to Union Hockey last season, and that they expected to donate nearly $150K this year. This translates to a lot of money for recruiting, among other things. Union, and its fans/boosters, have made a big-time commitment to hockey and it's paying off. Good for them, I hope they win it all. I saw them whitewash SLU 6-0 at Achilles and came away saying it was the best Union team I'd ever seen and that they could do some real damage in the NCAA's.Exactly, it was a lot more than just one scholarship program. The Garnet Blades have allowed U to make recruiting trips to western Canada and they have had good luck there. There were also rink improvements, giving coaches multi-year contracts (used to be 1-year at a time like the rest of U's D-III coaches), dedicated weight lifting facilities, a team strength coach, and increased coaching salaries all the way around. Simply put, Union started treating the hockey teams like they were D-1 programs and not the D-III tennis team like they had been. U also got lucky with a few recruits like Zajac, Welsh and Grosenick who did not have fantastic numbers in Juniors and were lightly recruited by other programs, but have turned into excellent players.

RSTuthill
04-01-2012, 08:46 AM
And money for extensive recruiting trips and even fly-ins can make a huge difference. So the Garnet Blades serve a very important function.

Hokydad
04-01-2012, 08:54 AM
I am unconvinced. Union's trajectory of success in hockey dates to the exact time this program was established. There is a singularity in the W-L timeline slope at that point

Agree on the observations on Hull, btw. Does not take away from the fact that Union is a very special place, however. And he did copy Trinity and clean up and gentrify the decaying neighborhood to the west of campus all the way down to the new soccer field.

Wrong.......

Leamand and Bennett. Two great coaches, 2 great evaluators of talent and 2 great recruiters. PERIOD.

Almost to a player, they brought in schools not offered scholarships elsewhere. If you think having a booster club pay for the airfare vs the school paying for the airfare meant squat to the recruits and their families you are dead wrong.

The program turned around because of these two coaches. Period.

A bus ticket to Moose Jaw had zero to do with it

You are right about one thing, "Union's trajectory of success in hockey dates to the exact time Bennett and Leaman showed up". I edited it for you..

Go Union, program on the rise

FireKnight
04-01-2012, 09:18 AM
Exactly, it was a lot more than just one scholarship program. The Garnet Blades have allowed U to make recruiting trips to western Canada and they have had good luck there. There were also rink improvements, giving coaches multi-year contracts (used to be 1-year at a time like the rest of U's D-III coaches), dedicated weight lifting facilities, a team strength coach, and increased coaching salaries all the way around. Simply put, Union started treating the hockey teams like they were D-1 programs and not the D-III tennis team like they had been. U also got lucky with a few recruits like Zajac, Welsh and Grosenick who did not have fantastic numbers in Juniors and were lightly recruited by other programs, but have turned into excellent players.

Union certainly hit a perfect storm with a few players that were less than highly recruited becoming successful, an increase in funding for a branching out in recruiting, and a few changes in policies at the college that allowed them to more easily recruit talent. The old administration's attitude toward athletics and the hockey team basically gave them zero chance at putting a quality product on the ice. The Canadian scholarship program has certainly been used as a help in recent years, as they hoped would have been done in the previous administration.

Union most certainly doesn't have the endowment advantage that the Ivies have, but it's not like they are broke either. Depending on the individual school's financial aid matrix, they may have a significant amount of flexibility in offering their aid. One of Union's Liberty League cohorts offers a "need blind" matrix that allows them to get academically qualified student-athletes for next to nothing, regardless of their parents' financial standing. I'm not sure how UC works it, but there's certainly a significant amount of fiddling that can be done within the rules, or close enough thereto without raising red flags.

Sometimes little breaks can make the biggest difference with some of the smaller schools. Most know that 18 scholarships doesn't make a hockey team, so if you can get a few very qualified (academically or need-based) players that are good players as well, you can hit the jackpot. A simple example would be the Clarkson teams of the early 90's. They essentially got a 19th scholarship because Craig Conroy's mother was a University employee, allowing him to attend tuition-free (and yes, before anyone asks, she worked there long before Craig was a blip on the hockey radar). That additional flexibility was in no small part responsible for the success of those teams.

Osorojo
04-01-2012, 09:29 AM
A chief reason for restrictions upon athletic scholarships is to protect the academic standards of sponsoring schools. A big concern in this thread is to expose and presumably reform the scholarship policies of Union College and the Ivies, thereby protecting their academic standards. How droll.

FireKnight
04-01-2012, 09:54 AM
A chief reason for restrictions upon athletic scholarships is to protect the academic standards of sponsoring schools. A big concern in this thread is to expose and presumably reform the scholarship policies of Union College and the Ivies, thereby protecting their academic standards. How droll.

Union has academic standards?

TimU
04-01-2012, 11:36 AM
A chief reason for restrictions upon athletic scholarships is to protect the academic standards of sponsoring schools. A big concern in this thread is to expose and presumably reform the scholarship policies of Union College and the Ivies, thereby protecting their academic standards. How droll.

BS. It's a purely philosophical policy: we don't give students preferential treatment based on their athletic abilities.

The way to protect the academic standards of sponsoring schools is very simple: only admit qualified students. It has NOTHING to do with athletic scholarships. A school who gives 18 athletic scholarships to fully qualified hockey players is protecting its academic standards. A D3 or Ivy League school that admits an otherwise underqualified athlete, and provides only need-based aid using a universally-applied formula, is compromising its academic standards.

I don't have a problem with schools choosing not to offer athletic scholarships, and I don't think they're all being dishonest about how they implement that policy. But to claim that it has anything whatsoever to do with academic standards is garbage.

LTsatch
04-01-2012, 01:01 PM
Interesting read


About the Ivy League's Academic Index
How to calculate it; what it means
If you’re a high school football player receiving letters from Ivy League football programs, then you should know what the Ivy League’s Academic Index (A.I.) is, and how to calculate it. Ivy League recruiters typically will not explain this.

The information presented here was drawn from conversations with coaches and from various books available at most public libraries. Two important books on this subject are: "Playing the Game," by Chris Lincoln (Nomad Press); and "A is for Admission" by Michele A. Hernandez (Warner Books).

The Academic Index: What it is

The Academic Index is a measure that Ivy League coaches use to determine a player's recruitability. Approximately two-thirds of it is based on your standardized test score (SAT or ACT); the other third is based on your class rank (or GPA, if your school does not provide class rank).

The original purpose of the Academic Index was to provide Ivy League schools with a standardized method for admitting athletes (Ivy League schools, however, now use the Academic Index for non-athletes, too). The important point to understand is that all Ivy League sports programs must abide by rules surrounding the index. Therefore, if your Academic Index is below the minimum level, you must raise it, or you cannot be admitted.

Also, be aware that Ivy League schools may send recruiting letters to you before they have calculated your index. According to the book, "Playing the Game," Ivy football programs typically start their recruiting processes by sending mass mailings to all of the 13,000-plus high schools in the U.S. They then follow up with hundreds or even thousands of letters to potential recruits across the country. Thus, recruiting letters by themselves are not a guarantee that you meet a certain school's minimum A.I. requirements.

Lastly, be aware that the index shown here is the same rough approximation used by Ivy League coaches. The real Academic Index used by Ivy admissions offices involves the use of the SAT 2 exam, which most athletes have not taken. Therefore, coaches use the following approximation to get a rough idea of your eligibility:

Academic Index = (SAT score /10) + (CRS)

To use the formula, follow these three steps:

Step 1. If you’ve taken the SAT, divide your cumulative score by 10. A 1300, for example, becomes a 130. This is your test score quotient.

Step 1-A. If you have taken the ACT rather than the SAT, go to Table 1 (see the link below) and convert your ACT score to an SAT. Then divide it by 10. This is your test score quotient.

Step 2. Get your Converted Rank Score (CRS) from Table 2 (see the links below). Make sure you use the table that’s right for the size of your graduating class.

Step 3. Add the CRS to the test score quotient. The sum of the two numbers is your Academic Index.


The Academic Index: What it means

There’s only one universal truth about the Academic Index: If you have an A.I. below 171, you cannot be admitted to an Ivy League school as an athlete. The Ivy League is unforgiving on this point, no matter how good the athlete.

For those at or above 171, the meaning of the Academic Index varies from school to school.

To precisely determine an athlete’s recruitability, the Ivy League segments all A.I.s above 171 into four “bands.” Bands at each school are defined by the statistical make-up of the school's current freshman class. In each school, therefore, the numbers associated with the bands differ. The universal rules that define the bands are as follows (if you're an Ivy League recruit, bear with this description; you should be able to understand it):

High band: This bands starts with the school's mean Academic Index, and ranges down to one standard deviation below the mean. ("Standard deviation" is defined as measure of the range of variation within a group. Typically, 68% of all data points fall within one standard deviation; 95% fall within two. In the case of the Ivy League Academic Index, one standard deviation reportedly varies from 12-16 points per school.)

Medium band: Goes from one standard deviation to two standard deviations below the mean.

Low band: Goes from two standard deviations to two-and-a-half standard deviations below the mean.

Low-Low band: Ranges from two-and-a-half standard deviations down to the minimum A.I. of 171.

Using this system, an Ivy League school with a mean Academic Index of 210 and a standard deviation of 14 would have its bands defined as follows:

High: 197-210
Med: 183-196
Low: 176-182
Low-Low: 171-175

Ivy League schools rarely, if ever, publish their mean A.I.s. It is assumed, however, that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (in that order) have the three highest mean figures, probably at or around 220. According to the book, "Playing the Game," Dartmouth usually falls fourth at approximately 212, followed (in order) by Columbia, Pennsylvania, Brown, and Cornell.

Under the rules of the system, no school can admit more than 30 football players per year. Moreover, the schools must specifically show that prescribed numbers of recruited players fall into the bands as follows:

High band: 8 players
Med. band: 13 players
Low band: 7 players
Low-Low: 2 players

In general, however, the following is also true about the meaning of your A.I.:

1. The lower your band, the better you must be as an athlete.

2. Students who fall in the “low-low” band need to be exceptional athletes (all-state caliber players who are being recruited by Michigan or Ohio State, for example).

3. Students with A.I.s above 220 stand a better chance of being recruited, and needn’t be All-State caliber players. In fact, some Ivies have been known to pad their teams’ Academic Indices by recruiting football players with 1550 SAT scores and virtually no chance of ever seeing game action.

4. In football, offensive linemen are often recruited in the medium and high bands. Low-low bands are most often reserved for impact players: quarterbacks, running backs, and wide receivers.

5. Ivy admissions are tough, even for recruited athletes. All Ivy League schools start with a pool of more than a thousand players, and then whittle that pool down to 30. A typical “low-low,” therefore, will be in the top quarter of his high school class, with a 27 on the ACT (1220 SAT), and will be a first-team all-stater or even a high school All-American caliber player. A typical “high” might still be an all-conference caliber player with a 33+ ACT (1460+ SAT) and a top 5% ranking.

Finally, remember that the formula presented here is a rough approximation used by coaches. Ivy admissions officers typically want prospective students to take the SAT 2 exam before calculating their “real” Academic Index.

shiftyjedi
04-01-2012, 02:32 PM
Yes, but I’d be very surprised if the academic profile of the world class musicians and actresses is the same as the academic profile of the athletes. I doubt that the Ivies have an Academic Index http://home.comcast.net/~charles517/ivyai.html for musicians and actresses so one of them doesn’t bend rules to admit Jodie Foster.

Let’s also note that many of the Ivy league schools are well funded enough that they can provide 100% of demonstrated need, which many schools cannot do. The disadvantage that the non-scholarship schools have is if they’re trying to recruit a student who’s family is a one percenter. For the kids that are from “Occupy” families, they can compete.

For me personally, it doesn’t make a difference whether a school gives athletic scholarships or not. It’s a choice they make. It’s only when it’s stated with an air of smug superiority (or when they act like it, like Union did a few years ago) that I find it annoying. I felt the same way about UMTC’s “Minnesota only” practice.

I don't think it's a myth, but I think they kid themselves as well. It's college hockey and not every player is on a scholarship. While it probably prevents them from getting blue chippers I think there academic requirements are probably a bigger reason. Still, Union also has the advantage of playing in the ECAC (where the playing field is relative similar), I'm not sure bragging about finally getting to the frozen four and along with one more NCAA tourny victory is all that to sniff about either.

The Minnesota-Only practice has been on extinct for over a decade now. In fairness, it got annoying in the 90's, but the reason around it was Herb Brooks was because college hockey had gotten away from US high school graduate going to college and competing in hockey against each other. The sixties and seventies saw too many teams (like Denver) being loaded up with mid-twenties major junior rejects. That kind of practice really allowed a shift from athlete - student to student - athlete which was great for college hockey and even more importantly the ECAC teams. Even at the end of Woog's tenure most Gopher fans were sick of the policy. They wanted the team loaded with Minnesota boys, but they also wanted good players and with USHL they couldn't also get the best Minnesota players if they didn't also recruit the best non-Minnesota players as well (i.e. Blake Wheeler/Phil Kessel). CLS I'm guessing you are probably in your early 30's and if you not a gopher's fan I can see why would be annoyed by it, since you don't really have the vested history behind it.

ExtendedForecast
04-01-2012, 03:05 PM
Interesting discussion...(apologies up front for typos, on mobile device)
I went to a NESCAc school which are sort of like Union re:academic standards and tuition costs. I received a full need based scholarship (my family is like dole poor.) The student athletes there were not on any type of scholarship different than what any other student woukd have. If you could afford it - you paid (or paid the part you could afford.) If you couldn't you got the same kind of scholarship as me - based on your expected family contribution. Sometimes there were little lulu scholarships like "quarterback memorial award" but they were maybe in the 2-5k range and don't put much of a dent in a 50k price tag. I assume when Union says the athletes go through the same process as everyone else at the financial adi office - this is what they mean. And except for being excused from class for road games....they didnt get any academic gimmies. They were expected to do the same work as everyone else. And those schools are often populated by kids who aren't quite good enough for Ivies (by good enough I mean, good scholars, great kids - but not running sucessful investment funds at 17 or filing patents...that's the top flight ivies.) Sometimes you see kids from very well off new rich families (finance and legal) that are conciously looking to eschew the world of ivy blue bloods and go into public service work. My alma mater for example has a direct recruiting line to the CdC from the chem/bio programs. Most of these kids can crush MCATS or do top 10 Phds and get rich at big pharma firms - but they come from money so they don't.
Now I am working in a large AAU university. I am sadly in the graduate program that the div I football players enroll in to get the extra year of NCAA medical eligibility. The experience couldn't be more different. These players never worried about the cost of undergrad. They knew they needed to go to the best football program that would let them in and of course they wouldn't pay. A term bill was like...what's that? But it doesn't enter into the calculus of picking a school. If youbare worried about going pro and the early rose bowl champ team says you can play here if you pay 10k tuition, I mean what is that to a kid chasing a signing bonus in the draft? We have to make special sylabai for them, create extra materials for their tutors, forwards reading material lists to their assistants who go to the bookstore and library on behalf of the player to get the readings for them. The basketball team is similar though less of a big deal on my campus. These kids often come from families who treat athletic ability as a lotto ticket. They dont really contemplate "career management" outside of sports.
It seems to me (though I could be wrong as my experience is limited) the kids playing for Union, or a good deal of the ECAC - if they don't already have NHL rights, they are there to go to Union first. A school of that caliber will probably have a decent career services office - and I'm guessing many of these kids realize that for MOST player - student athletics don't last forever. Yeah there may be some AHL after this. That not a bad paycheck by any means. Look at the retired NFL players suing the league because they werent told bashing your head over and over is bad for you. They spent all their money living like a pro athlete and now they can't even pay their own medical bills. No one wants to be that guy. That's sad.
Anyway, that's my experience attending a no athletic scholarship school and teaching in a total NCAA recruiting school. I'm sure there is middle ground between the two but my sense is thay union and the vast majority of its roster lean toward the former.

ExtendedForecast
04-01-2012, 03:11 PM
Interesting discussion...
I went to a NESCAc school which are sort of like Union re:academic standards and tuition costs. I received a full need based scholarship (my family is like dole poor.) The student athletes there were not on any type of scholarship different than what any other student woukd have. If you could afford it - you paid (or paid the part you could afford.) If you couldn't you got the same kind of scholarship as me - based on your expected family contribution. Sometimes there were little lulu scholarships like "quarterback memorial award" but they were maybe in the 2-5k range and don't put much of a dent in a 50k price tag. I assume when Union says the athletes go through the same process as everyone else at the financial adi office - this is what they mean. And except for being excused from class for road games....they didnt get any academic gimmies. They were expected to do the same work as everyone else. And those schools are often populated by kids who aren't quite good enough for Ivies (by good enough I mean, good scholars, great kids - but not running sucessful investment funds at 17 or filing patents...that's the top flight ivies.) Sometimes you see kids from very well off new rich families (finance and legal) that are conciously looking to eschew the world of ivy blue bloods and go into public service work. My alma mater for example has a direct recruiting line to the CdC from the chem/bio programs. Most of these kids can crush MCATS or do top 10 Phds and get rich at big pharma firms - but they come from money so they don't.
Now I am working in a large AAU university. I am sadly in the graduate program that the div I football players enroll in to get the extra year of NCAA medical eligibility. The experience couldn't be more different. These players never worried about the cost of undergrad. They knew they needed to go to the best football program that would let them in and of course they wouldn't pay. A term bill was like...what's that? But it doesn't enter into the calculus of picking a school. If youbare worried about going pro and the early rose bowl champ team says you can play here if you pay 10k tuition, I mean what is that to a kid chasing a signing bonus in the draft? We have to make special sylabai for them, create extra materials for their tutors, forwards reading material lists to their assistants who go to the bookstore and library on behalf of the player to get the readings for them. The basketball team is similar though less of a big deal on my campus. These kids often come from families who treat athletic ability as a lotto ticket. They dont really contemplate "career management" outside of sports.
It seems to me (though I could be wrong as my experience is limited) the kids playing for Union, or a good deal of the ECAC - if they don't already have NHL rights, they are there to go to Union first. A school of that caliber will probably have a decent career services office - and I'm guessing many of these kids realize that for MOST player - student athletics don't last forever. Yeah there may be some AHL after this. That not a bad paycheck by any means. Look at the retired NFL players suing the league because they werent told bashing your head over and over is bad for you. They spent all their money living like a pro athlete and now they can't even pay their own medical bills. No one wants to be that guy. That's sad.
Anyway, that's my experience attending a no athletic scholarship school and teaching in a total NCAA recruiting school. I'm sure there is middle ground between the two but my sense is thay union and the vast majority of its roster lean toward the former.

MinnesotaNorthStar
04-01-2012, 11:21 PM
I don't think it's a myth, but I think they kid themselves as well. It's college hockey and not every player is on a scholarship. While it probably prevents them from getting blue chippers I think there academic requirements are probably a bigger reason. Still, Union also has the advantage of playing in the ECAC (where the playing field is relative similar), I'm not sure bragging about finally getting to the frozen four and along with one more NCAA tourny victory is all that to sniff about either.

The Minnesota-Only practice has been on extinct for over a decade now. In fairness, it got annoying in the 90's, but the reason around it was Herb Brooks was because college hockey had gotten away from US high school graduate going to college and competing in hockey against each other. The sixties and seventies saw too many teams (like Denver) being loaded up with mid-twenties major junior rejects. That kind of practice really allowed a shift from athlete - student to student - athlete which was great for college hockey and even more importantly the ECAC teams. Even at the end of Woog's tenure most Gopher fans were sick of the policy. They wanted the team loaded with Minnesota boys, but they also wanted good players and with USHL they couldn't also get the best Minnesota players if they didn't also recruit the best non-Minnesota players as well (i.e. Blake Wheeler/Phil Kessel). CLS I'm guessing you are probably in your early 30's and if you not a gopher's fan I can see why would be annoyed by it, since you don't really have the vested history behind it.Ummmm...Blake Wheeler went to Breck, and is I believe from Robbinsdale (according to NHL.com).