Well Bob was certainly busy last night.  I had six messages on my computer.  He made sure I hadn't dropped off the list overnight and sent a copy of each to them to me personally.  I am gratified.  He is right, however.   I should go back and take that course again because I am having trouble finding any cogent arguments here.
 
I guess they are the following: 1. It is unfair that some teams have older players.  That doesn't move me much.  The NCAA has certain rules on age which the schools follow.  Beyond that who cares if a kid starts in college at 18, 19 or 20.  I used to hear that complaint from the Gophers (the team I do support) whenever they'd lose. (Your Canadians are older than our Americans.) You don't hear it much anymore now that they have a 25 year old goalie.  But it never impressed me.
 
2.  Some athletes study harder than others.  That has been adequately handled by others.  In fact, it is a shame that some athletes, for example, who start school wanting to be engineers are unable to do so because it is very time intensive and hard to do when playing D-1 sports.  But that is the choice a student makes.  Comparing schools on relative difficulty of majors or on comparative test scores would be ridiculous.  Yet there is nothing ridiculous about publicizing graduation rates. An interesting study would be the extent to which the athletes in a school reflect similar grades and test scores as the student body in that school in general.  That would be an indication of whether the athletes really fit, at least in terms of admissions criteria, with the the students at that institution.  Beyond that, however, it wouldn't tell you much.
 
If Bob's real point is that many D-1 sports are out of whack with the academic mission that is hard to argue with.  But, there won't be much retreat there because some sports are such revenue generators.  The athletes in those sports may just be tourists for a year or two in their college.  I sincerely doubt that when Kenny Anderson or Stephon Marbury briefly stopped at Georgia Tech they spent much time in freshman engineering.  But little will change that.
 
All I can say is that D-3 sports do seem consistent with the academic mission.  No athletic scholarships (although some preferential admissions as I am sure is true in the Ivies as well and is appropriate so that teams, orchestras, artists, etc. can all be part of the institution), playing because they want to, not because it is necessary to keep a scholarship or to move on the pros and where participation is part of the overall college experience.  Notwithstanding that, D-1 hockey is great to watch and I am sure provides educational opportunities to many worthy students who use athletics as a means to get a good education.   Bob, where did I screw up here?
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.