At 6:24 AM 11/1/96, Arthur Berman wrote:
 
>Occasionally some people complain about players who leave school early
>for the pros.  I believe that, at the big schools like BU or Michigan for
>example, the players are nothing more than underpaid employees.  This is a
>blot on what is supposed to be an activity adjunct to education, IMO of
>course.  If education is the priority four year scholarships should be
>given, or one year ones dependent on acheivement in the classroom, not in
>the rink.  At the big programs the players are every bit as much
>professionals as junior players in Canada.
 
Are they "underpaid employees" at big schools or at succesfull schools?
While I was at Michigan (89-94) I saw a team go from woefull to excellent.
The players Red recruited in the 80s when the teams wern't terribly good
were certainly there to play hockey and go to school as well. They
certainly wern't there for all the attention beiing paid to them (they only
sellouts were when all the Michigan State fans came down and bought tickets).
And judging by the number of players who stay in school (especially compared to those in football and basketball programs) I don't think the state of the hockey
program is all that bad right now.  If they didn't want to go to school,
most of the Michigan upperclassmen could be playing in the AHL, IHL, ECHL, etc. andmaking more money then they are "paid" now.  So why do they stay?
 
Michigan Freshman Class, Fall '93:
Frescoln, Bourke, Schock, Sloan, Morrison, Legg, Madden, Botterill, Luhning
 
Michigan Senior Class this season:
Frescoln, Bourke, Schock, Sloan, Morrison, Legg, Madden, Botterill, Luhning
 
 
Good schools are succesful because they make a committment to their players
and not in spite of it.
 
--Rolf
Michigan '93 '94
[log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.