At 09:00 AM 1/11/99 -0500, Steve wrote:
>Coach Berenson is VERY BIG on students finishing
>their college educations and will only go after young men who also want a good
>4 year college education.
 
It's very rare to have a student-athlete that doesn't truly plan on
completing their education; even with basketball, for every player that
leaves after 2 or 3 years of school there are thousands of others that stay
a full four or five years. In fact, three of the top young players in the
NBA skipped college altogether.
 
What's greatly different about hockey is that there exists a minor league
system that most other sports (except for baseball) do not have. It's a
pretty clear line between true NHL prospects and those that "may have a
shot with a few more years."
 
For those who are at the top of the heap, there are many different
motivations for attending college. Some players want to spend a year
playing so as to up their value when they sign; others are told by the
organizations that draft them to play at the college level; others would
rather opt for the more nurturing, safer environment of college life until
they're ready to truly leave the nest; others would rather be on a team as
a guaranteed starter rather than a question mark that is constantly sent
back and forth between the major and minor levels.
 
To wit, I'd say just about every coach and recruiting staff makes the
biggest push for the 4-year player. Indeed there are times when a player
will clearly be leaving early, and a team would be crazy to go without
them. In the case where the stellar talent comes from down the road, as was
with BU getting Amonte and Tkachuk. Parker and his staff didn't have work
to hard to get those into Terrier sweaters; they both WANTED to play for BU
before turning pro.
 
On the other side of the coin, Paul Kariya and Maine. Kariya wanted to play
a bit of college, and Maine simpky won the scramble.
 
Would Berenson -- or any other "graduating" coach -- have turned down
Kariya, Amonte, Tkachuk or Reasoner?
 
Furthermore, I'd wager that a large portion of the players that leave early
are players that most figured would be around for a full four years. Mike
Grier is the prime example that comes to mind here; when he started at BU
the general impression was that he might make the NHL someday, but it would
be a long, hard road with a lot of development required. BU (and Mike
Boyle, strength & conditioning trainer) changed that pretty darn fast.
 
 
Personally, I feel a player has the complete right to leave when they want;
likewise the schools have the right to recruit the players who may very
well be leaving early.
 
Why? Someone attends college to learn and grow. What they're there to
learn, be it chemistry, law, history, art, music or hockey doesn't matter.
What matters is the quality of education they receive while they're there,
not whether they're around for one semester or five years.
 
In fact, there are many academic disciplines at the undergraduate level
that see students leave early at a much higher rate than athletics. Many
students involved in communications along with fine and performing arts
leave early, often after only one or two years of school. The reasons for
leaving are the same; their careers would be better developed elsewhere.
 
Students that transfer and change majors are also in a similar boat.
 
Colleges recruit students in every discipline -- in many cases, much more
aggressively than with athletics. Schools like Harvard and MIT may be
associated with many famous alumni, but in many cases they can't be fully
credited with said alumni's fame or success whole development; that would
be akin to crediting BU and Parker for Tkachuk or Maine and Walsh for
Kariya. Fact is those players were aided by those schools, but the heart of
their development came from all over. Credit Parker and Walsh for the
development of players like Chris Drury and Garth Snow.
 
 
greenie
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.