Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[CLS]

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

. . . If a non-athlete with an SAT of 400 (ZERO) has no chance of admission to or a scholarship from a reputable college

Not true. To paraphrase you, it is painfully obvious that you don't understand the reason for de-emphasis on the SAT. The 3.5/400 standard is for eligibility, not admission. In several cases, the standard for admission for all applicants is in effect lower than 3.5/400, because they don’t require the SAT at all and don’t have a GPA cutoff. The de-emphasis on the SAT is part of a much broader movement to de-emphasize standardized tests, particularly the SAT.

. . . If you are willing to sacrifice educational expectations, even for a select few, for a winning hockey team what good are you or your opinions?

Then the opinion of virtually every college president and college admissions officer in the country – probably the world – is worth nothing. Because every college president and admissions officer has at one time sacrificed educational expectations, if not for a better hockey team, then for something else. Maybe an opera singer or a thespian or an artist. Maybe the college orchestra is desperate for an oboe player.

And even worse, IMO, maybe for friends or family of a wealthy alumnus. Maybe for an applicant who doesn’t request financial aid. I contend that these activities are worse than admitting dummy athletes; at least the other students might get enjoyment out of watching the dummy athlete. Nobody benefits from Chauncey Rockefeller Kennedy DePew IV getting admitted, except maybe for Chauncey.

[PLEASE don't claim college hockey programs will not take advantage of the NCAA's 00.00% qualifying test score to admit academically doomed "college"
hockey prospects. You would reveal yourself as a simpleton or a liar.]

This attitude is precisely the reason why you've gotten no support for your position. Not even "I disagree with you, but I think you have something worthwhile to say".

[TimU]

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

Tim:

Please look at what you wrote and think about it. You declare that colleges and universities - all of them - have no minimum academic standards for admission of non-athletes. Are you sure of this? How about the rest of your argument?

Wrong again. I'll slow down.

You look at the minimum entrance requirements that the NCAA imposes for certain athletes, and you conclude that there is a corruption problem in college hockey because schools are allowed by the NCAA to admit students without a minimum SAT score and let them participate in NCAA-sanctioned sports. YOU conclude that just because they can, they do - and not just any schools, but Division 1 hockey schools. Not me. You.

I pointed out that the NCAA has never put any kind of minimum requirement on non-athletes (which of course it can't), and that using YOUR logic - not mine - one would have to conclude that all schools are admitting students who scored 400 on their SAT. Yet somehow you don't come to this conclusion about students in general - only athletes.

My whole point was that schools can and do have their own admissions standards, which don't disappear when the NCAA rule book gets published. The imposition of ADDITIONAL requirements for athletes by the NCAA doesn't change this fact, and doesn't mean that any school or group of schools offering Division 1 hockey is admitting kids who attempted the SAT and couldn't answer a single question.

[TimU]

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

Not true. To paraphrase you, it is painfully obvious that you don't understand the reason for de-emphasis on the SAT.

Agreed. And this de-emphasis has been going on for decades.

[jcarter7669]

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

Tim:


I have searched at length and in vain for entrance qualifications and academic records of college hockey scholarship recipients in the most successful (championship) Division I teams: Michigan, Denver, North Dakota, Wisconsin, B.U., Minnesota, B.C., Michigan State, Lake Superior State, Michigan Tech.

Michigan has a GSR of 75%
Denver : 86%
North Dakota : Unknown
Wisconsin : 68%
BU : 82%
BC :87%
Minnesota :52%
Michigan State :72%
LSSU : unknown
Michigan Tech: unknown

Average of 75% GSR. Who cares what it takes to get in, the fact is 3/4 of college hockey players are graduating, and the many that aren't are going pro not failing out. Your point is false, and you concern is unwarranted. Give it up, the data doesn't support your cause. Take up global warming or something.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaah..._gsr_data.html

[komey1]

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

It's obvious he does not know what he is talking about when Lake Superior State and Michigan Tech are considered "successful" and championship.

[jcarter7669]

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

It's obvious he does not know what he is talking about when Lake Superior State and Michigan Tech are considered "successful" and championship.

lol , I was going to mention that but, decided this thread is bad enough as is with out dragging tech fans into it.

[Osorojo]

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

Wrong again. I'll slow down.

You look at the minimum entrance requirements that the NCAA imposes for certain athletes, and you conclude that there is a corruption problem in college hockey because schools are allowed by the NCAA to admit students without a minimum SAT score and let them participate in NCAA-sanctioned sports. YOU conclude that just because they can, they do - and not just any schools, but Division 1 hockey schools. Not me. You.

I pointed out that the NCAA has never put any kind of minimum requirement on non-athletes (which of course it can't), and that using YOUR logic - not mine - one would have to conclude that all schools are admitting students who scored 400 on their SAT. Yet somehow you don't come to this conclusion about students in general - only athletes.

My whole point was that schools can and do have their own admissions standards, which don't disappear when the NCAA rule book gets published. The imposition of ADDITIONAL requirements for athletes by the NCAA doesn't change this fact, and doesn't mean that any school or group of schools offering Division 1 hockey is admitting kids who attempted the SAT and couldn't answer a single question.

TimU: Thank you for clarifying your objections. I reach a different conclusion for the following reasons:

There is no evident motive for colleges to accept and award scholarships to "students in general" with SAT's nearing 400.

There are several motives for colleges to accept and award scholarships to hockey prospects who are seriously deficient academically: winning teams, increased ticket revenues, profits from selling team merchandise, publicity and recognition, increased alumni donations. I believe these motives are powerful enough to cause some colleges to admit athletes and award them scholarships although they are hopelessly unprepared for college level academics.

The GSR's published by the NCAA are a decade old, when SAT scores higher than Zero were required. The scores do not reveal the graduation success rates of recipients of athletic scholarships, which would logically be the first place to look for academic corruption. These elderly GSR's provide little reasssurance about the current and future relationship between college athletics and academic standards, particularly with the NCAA's recent relaxation of credible minimum standards of admission.

This thread is about Change in college hockey. Ten-year-old statistics are valuable only as a reference point to document change, not as evidence that change does not exist. When was the last time a Division I hockey school declared a player academically ineligible during hockey season? Have lowered admission standards produced higher academic achievement?

[jcarter7669]

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

The GSR's published by the NCAA are a decade old, when SAT scores higher than Zero were required. The scores do not reveal the graduation success rates of recipients of athletic scholarships, which would logically be the first place to look for academic corruption. These elderly GSR's provide little reasssurance about the current and future relationship between college athletics and academic standards, particularly with the NCAA's recent relaxation of credible minimum standards of admission.

This thread is about Change in college hockey. Ten-year-old statistics are valuable only as a reference point to document change, not as evidence that change does not exist. When was the last time a Division I hockey school declared a player academically ineligible during hockey season? Have lowered admission standards produced higher academic achievement?

The GSR's aren't a decade old. That's when they started school and the NCAA gives them 7 years to graduate so a 2002 GSR is for all atheletes that have graduated by 2009. So these GSR's are for CURRENT athletes. If you want to look at change I posted the GSR's for the past 6-7 years on your other lame thread. Go back and look them up. Actually nevermind, I know you won't, so I will remind you that the GSR for college hockey has increased over the past 6-7 years, but hey you just keep ignoring the facts.

As for a team declaring a player academically ineligible, it happens whether you want to acknowledge that fact or not. Start looking up some stats, you unfactually based rants are getting tiresome.

Oh yeah and here,
http://www.hockeyeastonline.com/men/hea/allacad.php

94 student atheletes from HE were at 3.0 or better. That's what roughly half that are at 3.0 or better. Doesn't seem like they are doing to bad.

[Osorojo]

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

As for a team declaring a player academically ineligible, it happens whether you want to acknowledge that fact or not. Start looking up some stats, you unfactually based rants are getting tiresome.

Oh yeah and here,
http://www.hockeyeastonline.com/men/hea/allacad.php

94 student atheletes from HE were at 3.0 or better. That's what roughly half that are at 3.0 or better. Doesn't seem like they are doing to bad.[/QUOTE]

Name as many Division I hockey players as you can who were declared academically ineligible during last year's season, or do we have to wait nine years for this information? You may maintain that playing Division I hockey infuses the players with academic prowess, and that accounts for the relatively low numbers of hockey players in academic trouble. I'm not that optimistic.
I'll grant you that H.E. seems in general to be maintaining academic standards and I'll raise you one: ECAC hockey. Some other leagues not so much, although criticizing all teams in one league is as foolish as praising all teams in another.
The fact remains that there is motive (publicity & $) and opportunity (lax or non-existent requirements & oversight) for college hockey programs to abuse academic standards. Human nature and history suggest the outcome.

[bronconick]

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

Again, until you actually explain why talented hockey kids with 0 interest and lacking the general ability to be a college student would bother going to or staying in college when they can play Canadian Major Juniors or even minor league hockey instead, you're ******ing in the wind and amusing us by splattering it all over your own face. I vaguely recall a kid at Michigan in the recent past who decided he was sick of the whole class thing, signed a deal with an OHL team and left at semester break. Ta-da. There's your academically ineligible issue solved.

Football and basketball have more "non-academic" kids because there are no other real options to make it to the professional leagues, and they're forced to bide their time because of draft restrictions. Hockey has the aforementioned options and baseball players have the option of signing directly out of high school into the minors.

I'm sure you'll ignore this again, because it destroys your entire argument and crusade, though.

[CLS]

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

And please learn to use the "Quote" and "Preview Post" functions.

[Osorojo]

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

Again, until you actually explain why talented hockey kids with 0 interest and lacking the general ability to be a college student would bother going to or staying in college when they can play Canadian Major Juniors or even minor league hockey instead, you're ******ing in the wind and amusing us by splattering it all over your own face. I vaguely recall a kid at Michigan in the recent past who decided he was sick of the whole class thing, signed a deal with an OHL team and left at semester break. Ta-da. There's your academically ineligible issue solved.



I'm sure you'll ignore this again, because it destroys your entire argument and crusade, though.

B.C. :

Don't ask me why "kids with 0 interest and lacking the general ability . . ." etc. would "bother going to . . . college . . ." Ask the kids who have done just that. Something sure as hell has convinced them to go to college, where they play hockey for a few years, drop out, and turn pro. Their numbers seem to be growing. There's even an active thread on this site which seems to be about bragging rights over which college suffered most this year from exactly the type of "college" hockey player you claim does not exist.

The academically inelligible issue is not solved by recruiting players who are likely to drop out, even for more than nine years. Legitimate academic institutions do not recruit academically deficient students and rely upon them dropping out to preserve their academic reputation. They most certainly do not go "Ta da" when a student, especially a scholarship student, drops out.

I'm surprised you didn't know about all the hockey players who entered college, dropped out, and turned pro. Maybe you were just ignoring them because their numbers destroy your argument?

[komey1]

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

Are you implying that the college hockey players that are leaving early are academically challenged?

Would you compare this to some computer programmer who gets a summer job or co-op at Lockheed Martin and he is so good that they want him to work for them full time and drop out?

[bronconick]

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

B.C. :

Don't ask me why "kids with 0 interest and lacking the general ability . . ." etc. would "bother going to . . . college . . ." Ask the kids who have done just that. Something sure as hell has convinced them to go to college, where they play hockey for a few years, drop out, and turn pro. Their numbers seem to be growing. There's even an active thread on this site which seems to be about bragging rights over which college suffered most this year from exactly the type of "college" hockey player you claim does not exist.

The academically inelligible issue is not solved by recruiting players who are likely to drop out, even for more than nine years. Legitimate academic institutions do not recruit academically deficient students and rely upon them dropping out to preserve their academic reputation. They most certainly do not go "Ta da" when a student, especially a scholarship student, drops out.

I'm surprised you didn't know about all the hockey players who entered college, dropped out, and turned pro. Maybe you were just ignoring them because their numbers destroy your argument?

One goes to college, you clown, to qualify themselves for a career. A hockey player that signs a NHL contract has done so. People don't go to college to just "learn" like some ancient Greek philosopher.

If I'm three years into my education and get an offer to begin my career, I'm jumping at it, and will worry about finishing my degree in spare time in the future.

You apparently want them to turn down said contract and ask them to call back in 2-3 years. I can only surmise that you're being deliberately obtuse and stupid.

[Osorojo]

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

One goes to college, you clown, to qualify themselves for a career. A hockey player that signs a NHL contract has done so. People don't go to college to just "learn" like some ancient Greek philosopher.

If I'm three years into my education and get an offer to begin my career, I'm jumping at it, and will worry about finishing my degree in spare time in the future.

You apparently want them to turn down said contract and ask them to call back in 2-3 years. I can only surmise that you're being deliberately obtuse and stupid.

My, you change your mind a lot. First you claimed there was no reason for kids who wanted to turn pro to go to college. Now your latest argument is that there are in truth numerous kids who go to college who want to play pro hockey, and as soon as possible, but they have "the right" to do so. Must be making dropout hockey a civil rights issue is your new argument because your last one was a pitiful denial of reality.

Some people don't go to college to learn. You got that right, and some people don't go to the college library to read or study. They go there to pick up chicks, but that's a lousy reason to build, equip, staff, and maintain a library. Why build a college, staff it, establish academic expectations, recruit people, and provide them with scholarships if what they really want to do is play pro hockey? The answer to this one is so easy even a bozo like you can get it. [I assume you don't mind me replying in kind, unless you are one of those one-way fellas.]

The main purpose for building and operating a college is to provide academic instruction, and not just to Greek philosophers.* What is the purpose of recruiting and awarding a scholarship to a kid who doesn't care much about academic instruction but really wants to play pro hockey, and is probably honest enough to admit it? Hint: this purpose does not conform with the mission of a reputable college.

*Your anti-intellectual bias is showing through. Those college eggheads better not try to force your hockey heros to learn, eh?