First off a point about rookies, someone mentioned UIC goalie Jon
Hillebrandt as one of the nation's top rookies but how about Cornell
netminder Parris Duffis and his @ 2.3 GAA. If Cornell scored any goals,
they'd be in first place in all probability.
Someone else asked for a list of ex-collegians in the NHL, below I've
listed all NHL'ers that I know went to college listed in the Hockey
News team scoring summaries. Mind you, this is not a complete list but
it is all the ex-collegians that I personally know went to college. I'm
sure there will be some corrections/additions posted on hockey-L from
people wanting to point out their favorite NHL'er left of this list. remember
this is just NHL'ers:
craig janney, steve Leach, matt delguidice, colin patterson (clarkson alum),
daren puppa, tom draper, scott king, dave taylor (Clarkson's all-time leading
scorer), peter lappin, john leclair, randy mckay, brian leetch, tony amonte,
doug weight, rod brind'amour, kevin stevens, joe nieuwendyk, brett hull,
adam oates, curtis joseph, guy hebert, dave thomlinson and bob essensa.
[wish this darn shift key would work right]
Keep in mind that anyone who I wasn't totally sure played in college was
omitted from this list.
Moving on, Mark Grassel writes:
>Greg writes:
>> stuff deleted about OSU coach Jerry Walsh's comments
>> Does *everybody* out there equate de-emphasizing
>>athletics with respect to academics with "not working hard"? Another
>>example of this sort of reaction came from Jack Parker last year, when
>>the number of hockey scholarships was cut back. Parker said (this is a
>>paraphrase, but one which I think is accurate) "the NCAA is forcing us
>>to compete with not enough players". I guess by Parker's definition
>>that means the non-scholarship schools have for years fielded teams and
>>won championships with NO players!
> I disagree with your analysis of the NCAA cutbacks. The object
> of the mythical "academics first" movement should be to improve
> the lot of scholar-athletes. Do you think cutting coaches and
> scholarships will improve the conditions for these students?
> I think the answer is obviously no. These cuts will reduce
> the pool of athletes able to attend college, who put in the extra
> effort required as an athlete, while lessening the learning
> opportunities afforded by more coaches. The academics first
> movement is a myth because its real aim is to reduce costs.
> The NCAA cuts were across the board cuts that deeply hurt
> first class programs in sports other than hockey. These sports
> matter little to the NCAA because they don't bring in big
> bucks via TV for the NCAA. Hockey does make money at many
> Div. I schools but probably not at OSU. All the more reason
> for Jerry Walsh and the OSU athletic dept. to be unopposed
> to the hockey cuts.
This is the main source of inequity in justice concerning the
NCAA (and perhaps society in general). Certain just-as-important/worthy
programs are ignored because they don't make money. Who's to say that
lacrosse is less important than football just because it brings in less
money. Is that the purpose of college athletics? (perhaps I should be
realistic here)
> Well I certainly agree with you here. The odd thing is that
> many people think that the NCAA is cleaning up college sports.
> Yet how many changes have they made that affect basketball and
> football, the problem sports that started this mess.
Exactly. Why should other sports have to pay for football's and
basketball's mistakes while the big two remain practically unaffected by the
mess they caused. Mike makes a similar point below.
Mike writes:
>Greg writes:
>> Another
>>example of this sort of reaction came from Jack Parker last year, when
>>the number of hockey scholarships was cut back. Parker said (this is a
>>paraphrase, but one which I think is accurate) "the NCAA is forcing us
>>to compete with not enough players". I guess by Parker's definition
>>that means the non-scholarship schools have for years fielded teams and
>>won championships with NO players!
>Parker has a very valid point. Hockey teams dress at least 20 players a game
>and play at least 19. By cutting the number of scholarships, you are forced
>to play kids who you could not offer a scholarship to. I don't see basketball
>being forced to offer fewer than 5 scholarships.
While the scholarship cuts appeared to be across the board, in practical terms,
it wasn't. While basketball teams usually use between 7-9 players in any one
game for any length of time, the other 3-5 members of the team get "scrub"
time in the last two or three minutes of a blowout but never in a close game.
There just there so the team has enough bodies in practice. On the other hand,
even 3rd liners in hockey get several shifts a game, every game, season opener
to league finals. Take away the 10-12th man in hoops and it makes little
difference come game time. Take away a hockey coaches 3rd line and see what
happens.
>And, the so-called non-scholarship schools are, of course, still finding other
>ways to get their players aid even if they do not call it awarding athletic
>scholarships. Most of these schools have rich endowments and can easily give
>hockey players academic or financial scholarships, and they do.
>>Everybody knows that the NCAA is starkly hypocritical in cutting back
>>the resources of other sports while allowing the big-time basketball
>>and football programs, whose infractions and excesses provided the
>>public impetus for the "academics first" movement in the first place,
>>to do whatever they want.
>That's exactly right. Problems in hockey and other sports have been few and
>far between. Why should they pay the price? If we saw problems in hockey
>even remotely approaching those in basketball and football, I would likely
>agree that something needed to be done. But basketball and football get to
>go along their merry way because they make the NC$$ money, and everyone else
>suffers the cutbacks so that it can appear as if the NC$$ is doing something
>to police college athletics. This just isn't fair.
This is an important point. Can anyone name any hockey program ever put on
NC$$ probation? The only one I can think of is Div III (!) Plattsburgh St.,
who had a national championship stripped because of the crimes (which is
hypocritical too because if you remember 1988 Hoops Ntnl Champ Kansas was
put on probation shortly after its title win but still got to keep the
ntnl champs banner). And the problem at Plattsburgh was overzealous boosters
breaking hardly-known NC$$ rules (once they treated players to a Montreal
Canadiens game, apparently against NC$$ rules), the school did nothing
wrong. Football and basketball started and seem to be the only perpetrators
of the problem but are, according to NC$$ "logic", immune from the remedies.
>> But just because the NCAA can't keep its
>>hands out the till long enough to do the right thing with those sports
>>is no reason to dismiss the general attempt to reassert academic
>>integrity in college athletics.
>I don't think anyone is dismissing the idea at all. Make changes where they
>need to be made. Don't say "We need to police college athletics better" and
>then ignore the sports that are causing the problem. If basketball and
>football didn't exist, I doubt we would see the changes that have been taking
>place lately. No one would be clamoring for them because the problems don't
>exist in the other sports. I suspect hockey people would have a little easier
>time swallowing the cutbacks if they were being applied across the board, but
>while football was allowed to keep their coaches, hockey lost theirs. Where
>is the justice?
See above. We wouldn't need the changes taking place lately because there
would be no problems, and therefore no solutions would be necesary.
>I want to add that I think that the academic integrity in college hockey
>is just fine as it is. There is no epidemic of players missing classes,
>getting phony grades or favors just because they play hockey. And even if
>there was a problem, cutting back on coaches - the guys who are there to try
>to help their players both in hockey and school - makes no sense as an
>attempted solution. Weak analogy, but that would be like cutting back on
>guards at a maximum security prison even though you have the money to hire
>them.
>Hockey doesn't have the number of coaches they have just to have them. Every
>coach fulfills an extremely important job, from developing and running practice
>to recruiting to serving as academic advisors and counselors to the 25-30
>players on a typical team, as well as scouting opponents, preparing game plans
>and coaching in games. Merrimack has survived with one head coach and two
>full-time assistants, but this will kill them. It is rare as it is that all
>three coaches are ever behind the bench for a game, and often there is only
>head coach Ron Anderson. Asst. Stu Irving spends most of his time on the
>road (it's a surprise to see him around the office), and Anderson regularly
>makes 10 hour drives to see prospects on his days off. Rick Mills coaches
>the JV and handles much of the personal work dealing with the players that
>Ron and Stu don't always have time for when they're away. I honestly don't
>know how they're going to shift the many responsibilities next season. One
>way or another, the players will suffer.
I hardly think two-full time assistants is unreasonable considering the amount
of work (game plan, recruiting, counseling,...see above) that they put in.
There work doesn't begin on opening night or end after the last game.
>Not to mention that many good young coaches like Mills may be driven out of
>college coaching because they can't manage to support a family on a part-time
>assistant's salary. Is this the direction we want hockey to take in the USA?
NC$$ doesn't seem to care about the direction hockey goes in the USA!
Does anyone know how many coaches a college football team has? Head coach,
offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator. There are AT LEAST three
(two assistants). This is excluding any specialized coaches (QB coach,
special teams coach, etc) and any scouts or coaches who help the head guy
recruit. In basketball, I usually see at least 3 guys on the bench in a
suit and tie.
BRI
-------------------------------------------
Bri Farenell
Clarkson '95
[log in to unmask]
___________________________________________
A FAN OF USA HOCKEY AND PROUD OF IT!
"It's a great day for hockey" ---Bob Johnson 1937-1991
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B Property of B
B B
B B
B B
B B
BBBBBBBBB
B 1992 B
BBBBBBBBBBBBB
B Boston B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B Bruins B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B GO B'S B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
|
