Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[Patman]

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

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

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

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

Be careful what you wish for.

Its not even that... I think for a BCS conference to flip into hockey then hockey would have to become the nation's number two or strong number 3 sport... and by then you'll see others jumping in as well.

Fact of the matter is that is out of the control of the expansive "college hockey community" in whatever manifestation.

[DarthBruno]

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

Also I think the biggest problem is that in most areas with the exception of Minnesota I believe, hockey is not a high school sport. If it is at all it is relegated to the same level as the lawn bowling team.

You must never have been to the US Northeast. In my little state of RI, most public and I believe all private high schools have competitive boys' and girls' varsity hockey teams, some with JV programs as well.

I will grant that the best high school hockey programs in New England are those at private boarding schools and a few outstanding Catholic high schools, such as Catholic Memorial in MA and Mount St. Charles in RI, rather than at public high schools. However, the public high schools with robust hockey programs feed the prep schools and junior hockey regularly. And most kids who play high school hockey also play on good programs in the h.s. off-seasons. (My nephew in MA did this: Bridgewater Bandits when not on the ice for his public high school team, which he captained.)

[unhpuckfan2001]

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

You must never have been to the US Northeast. In my little state of RI, most public and I believe all private high schools have competitive boys' and girls' varsity hockey teams, some with JV programs as well.

I will grant that the best high school hockey programs in New England are those at private boarding schools and a few outstanding Catholic high schools, such as Catholic Memorial in MA and Mount St. Charles in RI, rather than at public high schools. However, the public high schools with robust hockey programs feed the prep schools and junior hockey regularly. And most kids who play high school hockey also play on good programs in the h.s. off-seasons. (My nephew in MA did this: Bridgewater Bandits when not on the ice for his public high school team, which he captained.)

Agreed; they hold the New Hampshire High School hockey championships at the Verizon Wireless Arena in Manchester, so there is at least SOME following of High School in this state. Brian Foster was the highest touted goalie in the country out of high school (that's what I wastold, and I have reason to trust the source, but I'm sure that could easily be dis / proved) and he's orginally from Bow, NH.

[Osorojo]

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

[QUOTE=RedFreak;4776798]While I would like to see college hockey grow in the number of teams playing the sport, and really think it's important that we don't contract, I most definitely would hate to see it turn into bouncy-ball lite.

Or football lite. The Florida State Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the NCAA could NOT prevent records of college academic cheating from release to the public. The NCAA worked hard to protect their ability to cover up such messes from public view - but the court realizes the public subsidizes athletic scholarships.

Presumably this ruling extends to college athletics beyond football; even into the (virgin?) area of college hockey. This decision may be a crushing blow to the growth of college hockey programs which, to build winning records, rely upon scholarships to recruit hockey players with questionable academic credentials, academic aspirations, and academic performance.* We all know who these recruits are: it's painfully obvious from the start they are not seeking a degree, but subsidized ice time, exposure, and development to become professional hockey players. You know - the one and two year talented hockey dropouts we read so much about.

* The FSU athletes in this case cheated on an ON-LINE MUSIC APPRECIATION TEST, among others.

[scsutommyboy]

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

[QUOTE=Osorojo;4784565]

While I would like to see college hockey grow in the number of teams playing the sport, and really think it's important that we don't contract, I most definitely would hate to see it turn into bouncy-ball lite.

Or football lite. The Florida State Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the NCAA could NOT prevent records of college academic cheating from release to the public. The NCAA worked hard to protect their ability to cover up such messes from public view - but the court realizes the public subsidizes athletic scholarships.

Presumably this ruling extends to college athletics beyond football; even into the (virgin?) area of college hockey. This decision may be a crushing blow to the growth of college hockey programs which, to build winning records, rely upon scholarships to recruit hockey players with questionable academic credentials, academic aspirations, and academic performance.* We all know who these recruits are: it's painfully obvious from the start they are not seeking a degree, but subsidized ice time, exposure, and development to become professional hockey players. You know - the one and two year talented hockey dropouts we read so much about.

* The FSU athletes in this case cheated on an ON-LINE MUSIC APPRECIATION TEST, among others.

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

[amherstblackbear]

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

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

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

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

Be careful what you wish for.

Yup.

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

Scr3w that.

[Puck Swami]

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

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

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

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

College hockey just does not have serious academic issues.

[TimU]

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

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

[LynahFan]

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

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

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

Well done, sir!

[WildKitty]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CLS]

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

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

[Osorojo]

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

[QUOTE=scsutommyboy;4784590]

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

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

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

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

[TimU]

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

[QUOTE=Osorojo;4785010]

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

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

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

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

[CLS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[WildKitty]

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

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

Can we talk about coaching changes?