Greenie <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>Mike Machnik quoth:
[...]
>Okay, you've spurned me on to do some research. So far, while looking
>through the complete list of WCHA and CCHA ages, I've found over 50 players
>in each division that are (or will be) 24 years old as seniors. Roughly 10
>of these players are 25 (or will be) years old as seniors. [note: please
>see my new post regarding my info-gathering, I'm making a list]
It is still very important to note whether they turn 24 (or 25) before
or during their senior years. If before, then I would bet that
they did not enter college with a full four years of eligibility (or
they redshirted a year for some reason). These are the players I was
thinking of, the ones who enter and can play four years.
The vast majority of college hockey players are 20 years old or
younger when they enter college.
>Considering the average age of a senior in college is 21.9 years old
>(according to the Bureau of Higher Education), I think that this is a
>little silly. Take into consideration that just about ALL of these players
>are coming out of junior hockey programs, and it makes you wonder just what
>the motivation is for these players to go get an education. What do they
>do, wait until their college eligibility is at stake before going to
>school?
I think there is a risk here of sounding quite provincial. As regards
Canadians, it is quite typical for them to go to school for one or two
extra grades beyond what most US students do. Thus it is natural for
them to be older when they enter college. We should not expect them
to do things the same way we do them.
>>Actually, Merrimack is upwards of $18-20,000 a year including tuition and
>>room and board.
>
>Yikes. My mistake. No insult to Merrimack intended, but on all of my visits
>to the school (okay, they were at night) I didn't know it cost that much.
There are various reasons for that...mainly that it is a private
school (not everyone knows that). Some think it is overpriced. It
depends what you want to get out of it. It may have less in the way
of some facilities as compared to some state schools, but steps are
being taken to change that.
>For the Ivies, the hockey players generally meet the minimum that the
>League requires of student athletes. Without hockey (or football, soccer,
>whatever), most of these kids wouldn't even come close to getting into to
>the Ivies.
Again, I don't believe this is true. It seems that even if what you
say above about just meeting the minimum is correct, this would
mean that the Ivy schools' SA minimum is below the minimum for the
entire school. And I have not seen anything that shows me this is
true - in fact, I seem to recall hearing the opposite.
>It's also interesting to see that there are a large number of
>freshman being accepted into Ivy hockey programs that have been playing
>junior hockey for the last 2-3 years. Again, where's the academic
>commitment?
I would disagree with the idea that if a player goes to junior hockey
and then college, he must not be committed to academics. It may be
true for some, but to generalize like this is a bad idea. There are
many players who are committed to both and wish to maximize their
ability to achieve in both.
>Like you said, these are usually the exception to the rule. It's good to
>see that Kesselring and Laroche are involved in demanding majors. However,
>you can't measure academic achievement by GPA. For many majors at many
>colleges, a GPA of 3.0 is not a big deal.
But now it sounds like even when a SA has achieved something generally
recognized as symbolic of academic achievement, you want to say that
it's still not enough. What is? The school thinks it is enough.
>While I was at BU, I had a number of hockey players (and other student
>athletes) in some of my classes, and lived on the same dorm floor (for
>three years) as many hockey players. I typed (pure transcription, folks) a
>lot of their papers for them, and tutored a few players. Throughout my time
>with them I learned a lot about their interest in academics.
>
>Many of these kids were NOT at BU to get a degree, and certainly wouldn't
>have been considered for acceptance if not for hockey. I have heard the
>same comments from many other fans all around hockey. Sure, we love these
>30-plus point scorers, but that doesn't mean we think they're all great
>students.
I was an assistant manager of the hockey teams at RPI and Northeastern
when I was there...and I lived with friends who played on the teams.
(1985-88 or so time frame) So I feel I had a pretty good handle on
the academic commitment of the players there.
What I would say, looking back, is that the hockey teams at these (and
probably other schools) were in many ways a microcosm of the entire
student body. There were players who didn't care about school...there
were players who were up all hours of the night studying (well, until
curfew anyway). Similarly, there were non-SAs who seemed only to be
there to party, and there were non-SAs who were committed to their
studies.
It is quite easy to extrapolate the cases of a few players into being
representative of all of them. But it is usually not true.
RPI, in fact, was a case unto itself. Many of the students looked
down upon the players when it came to academics, and it had nothing to
do with the players' intelligence. Most RPI players then were
majoring in management...immediately cause for derision by their
fellow students who majored in engineering or whatever. Never mind
that 1) business/management might be the most popular major in the US
(at the least, it is up there); 2) many of these players worked harder
at their studies than their non-hockey playing classmates did; 3)
management has a lot to do with whether these engineers were going to
have a job when they graduated, because the company that is managed
poorly isn't around long.
Some of the players thought it quite strange that their fellow students
would come to cheer them on during the weekend, then make fun of them
during the week in class and in the hallways. And while not all of
them would do this, it is still true that many who derided them for
not being in engineering or in the sciences were the same ones who
were in line for a month for hockey tickets. From my point of view,
it caused quite a schism between the team and the rest of the school.
No, some of the 30 point scorers aren't great students, but some of
them are. Mark Cornforth was a smart kid who worked his tail off in
Accounting and got a job with one of the top firms in Boston (before
the Bruins came calling). Kesselring is a smart kid and his 3.63 GPA
shows - 3.63 in CS anywhere, including at Merrimack, is not the
easiest thing to do.
(disclaimer: all GPAs I have mentioned were released by Merrimack and/or
HE and were published in the papers.)
And as I said, just as some players achieve in school and some don't,
some non-players achieve and some don't.
>However, when
>the schools go to Canada, Finland, Sweden, Russia, etc. to recruit
>21-year-old freshmen, that's when I begin to dotbt one's commitment to
>academics.
If we're talking overseas players, then we could also introduce into
this discussion the statistics regarding what percentage of *all*
students are from various countries. It's not just hockey players
that come to the US to go to school.
>If academics were the motivator, these athletes would have gone
>to school SOMEWHERE and attempted to transfer, as many student athletes do,
>rather than try to increase their athletic skills in hopes of being
>"discovered" by a better team.
I can't understand this way of thinking at all. As someone who will
probably have to figure out a way to get my kids into college and pay
for it twenty years or so down the road, there is no way that I would
not at least consider any opportunity to either get them into a better
school or get them a scholarship so they and I don't have to pay for
it (or don't have to pay as much).
I just don't have a problem with older students/players going to
college. As it is, I believe that many freshmen are not mature enough
to deal with college, and in many cases a year or two off before
school would help a great deal.
[deleted: Rausch story, which I agreed was a good one, one that is
repeated all over the country as players walk on and prove they can
play.]
>Another one of last year's "heroes" for
>BU, Jacques Joubert, was a transfer from Princeton. Whatever his method or
>motivation, he found a way to play for a "better" team without holding out
>for 3 years in the juniors.
I don't think this is a good comparison. When Joubert started at
Princeton, his five years began ticking. In order to maintain his
eligibility, he had no choice but to enroll at another school
immediately. If he had gone to the USHL (example) for a year and then
to BU, he would have had to sit a year and then had only two years to
play.
(and yes, I think the way he went from Princeton to BU and became a
better player and leader was great. It's just not right to suggest
that he could have gone junior but chose the "high road.")
>Ahhh, but you forget. No college coach lasts very long if he can't "bend"
>the rules. And if they get caught, it's never their fault. College sports
>are all the same, no matter what the particular game is.
I don't agree. I'm just not as cynical when it comes to college
hockey.
>Unfortunate as it is, a college hockey player with a 30-point season (not
>uncommon) will always get more accolades, more attention, and more pats on
>the back than a college hockey player graduating with honors and a 10-point
>season.
That's the fans' fault. If no one knows about the players who
graduate with honors, that's because the press doesn't promote them
enough...which is because the fans don't care as much about a
Distinguished Scholar as they do a Player of the Year.
I am trying to do my part by promoting the academic accomplishments of
the Merrimack team here and on my web site. There is a page devoted
to just this subject. Merrimack SID Tom Caraccioli has seen it and
loves it...you may see it used in a promotional way in the next year
or so. He also agrees that this stuff should be out there more than
it is.
>Like we've all said, none of this is anything new. But do any other college
>sports recruit these "minor leagues" the way college hockey does?
>Basketball and football sure don't ...
Would they if there was such a place to get players from? I think so.
Hockey is different because there is a place for players to go before
college and after high school. Basketball and football have no
juniors, nor do college basketball and football get players from
outside the traditional American system (whereby students go from high
school right to college).
>... and from what I've watched of baseball
>(College World Series, mostly) I don't see 24 year-olds who have been
>drafted for the last 6 years stepping up to the plate.
Maybe not, but you might see 23 year olds. As someone mentioned, it
is more and more popular for athletes to go to prep school for a year
and then to college (in more sports than hockey). 23 or 24...I don't
see a difference.
>Again, I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm flaming. This was, and still is, a
>very sensitive subject for me.
That's ok. It is for me too, because I have long felt that many
players get a bad rap when it comes to academics. And so I am often
caught defending them. We may disagree, but as with anyone here, I
respect your opinion and your right to have it.
--- ---
Mike Machnik [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93
***** Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at: *****
***** http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html *****
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
