With all this Hobey talk, I thought I'd mention something I found in this
week's _The Hockey News_. In its US College Feature, THN ran a pair of
point-counterpoint articles on whether "length of service" should be a
criteria in selecting the Hobey Baker Award winner. This relates to the
discussion we had here a few months ago about whether Maine's Paul Kariya
should receive consideration for the award this year (and in fact, Kariya
was listed as an example in both articles). The two articles, by WCHA
correspondent Andy Baggot and CCHA correspondent Matt Carlson, were
interesting enough that I'm reproducing them (without permission) for your
HOCKEY-L viewing pleasure.
First, in a box labelled "Eligibility Criteria", THN reports:
"The Hobey Baker Memorial Award was inaugurated by the Decathlon Club in
Bloomington, Minn. in 1981.
"Candidates for the award must: exhibit strength of character on and off
the ice; display high skill in all games; show scholastic achievement and
sportsmanship; comply with NCAA rules; be full-time students in an NCAA or
NAIA college; and complete 50 per cent or more of the season."
Now the two articles:
(begin quoted material)
Length of service important aspect of highest award (by Andy Baggot)
Nowhere in literature pertaining to the creation and presentation of the
Hobey Baker Award is length of service used to define its ideal recipient.
But it should be included.
The Hobey Baker Award is supposed to go annually to the outstanding college
player in US college hockey. It is supposed to represent strength of
character on and off the ice, contribution to a team effort and stellar
hockey skills. It should also, whenever possible, go to an individual who
best exhibited these characteristics over the long haul.
This is not to diminish the contributions of those rare individuals whose
arrival at the college level has coincided with great feats. Last year, it
was Brian Rolston, a freshman center who helped Lake Superior State to a
national title. This year it is Paul Kariya, a rookie forward whose contri-
butions to top-ranked Maine can't be overstated.
There may come a time when the accomplishments of a first-year player will
so dwarf those of the competition that he simply must be given the Hobey.
That could very well happen this year. Northeastern coach Ben Smith got me
thinking when he said it would be an "embarrassment" if someone other than
Kariya got the Hobey.
But Kariya's coach Shawn Walsh said something just as profound. In response
to a story about how major junior teams in Canada are capitalizing on
prohibitive NCAA rules and beating US colleges to the punch for top US
players, Walsh said prospects need to be made aware of the benefits of the
whole college experience. In other words, there is more to this equation
than just being an athlete. And there is more to it than merely attending
classes.
It means getting to know and getting along with people from other walks of
life, peers with similar drive and aspirations even though they may not know
a crosscheck from a cheque book. You do not complete this process in one
year or even two. Balancing involvement in a high-profile sport with the
challenges of school is a process that takes a lot of time, maturation, and
discipline. In my mind, those who have done that grade out higher on the
Hobey curve.
And there are bigger concerns about the Hobey process than how its most
deserving recipient is defined. It has to do with how the winner is deter-
mined. A 16-member committee comprised of NHL scouts, college coaches,
media members, and other observers determines the 10 finalists.
But members of this current group were not entirely organized and notified
of their duties until last month, more than halfway through the season. It
is bad enough geographic limitations make it impossible for all 16
evaluators to see the best candidates. Why make it worse by cutting their
evaluation time in half?
Recent years have seen the advent of US colleges as a more viable means of
reaching the NHL. Look no further than the 1991 NCAA title game between
Boston University and Northern Michigan. Only two years removed and already
10 players from that thrilling triple-overtime game are in the NHL.
But the focal point -- heck, the beauty -- of the college game is great
players do not always make it to the pros. That is reflected in the fact
that of the 12 Hobey winners since 1981, only three currently play in the
NHL. True, more college players are making it to the pros, but it hardly
rivals football and basketball.
College hockey is different. That is why the Hobey Baker Award should
reflect the best example of not only talent, but commitment and perseverance
as well.
***
Year's best player should capture NCAA's top honor (by Matt Carlson)
When trying to explain the Hobey Baker Award, college hockey reporters
usually refer to the trophy as an honor given to "the US college hockey
player of the year."
That description usually satisfies both editors and readers. It's simple,
tight, and understandable. Nobody asks questions.
So why not make that definition official? Trash all the gobbledy-gook about
scholarship, service to college hockey, and sportsmanship.
As Michigan State coach Ron Mason suggests, the Hobey should be the
equivalent of the NHL's Hart Trophy -- not a conglomeration of the Hart,
Lady Byng, and Masterson.
"It should be an award for the MVP of college hockey," Mason said. "It
should go to a player, who if you took him off a team, that team wouldn't
win."
Mason maintains MVP status should be determined regardless of whether a
player is senior, junior, sophomore, or freshman. He says the Hobey
shouldn't be "an offensive award" given to a skater who piles up points.
Defensemen and goaltenders should merit consideration.
Mason's views aren't out of line with many of his colleagues. It would be a
crime not to honor a player who's clearly the best or most-valuable just
because: 1) he's an underclassman; 2) he has a C-plus average; or 3) he
doesn't have a sports information department spewing out propaganda about
how wonderful he is.
Given more precise criteria, a different list of finalists would surface
this season. For instance, a lot of people will argue that Maine freshman
Paul Kariya deserves serious consideration this year.
Is he the player of the year? Maybe. Is he the MVP? Probably not. Maine
would be one of the best teams in the National Collegiate Hockey Association
[sic] without him. But what if Kariya had joined a mediocre team? What if
he were the catalyst that enabled the team to contend for its league title
and get into the NCAA tournament?
A super-frosh or super-sophomore -- such as Kariya or Lake Superior State's
Brian Rolston -- shouldn't be shortchanged when he makes an important
contribution. The Hobey shouldn't go to a talented senior -- such as North
Dakota's Greg Johnson, for example -- just because he has paid his dues and
is well liked.
All college hockey coaches agree on one thing. The Hobey should continue to
go to the player who is making an impact as a collegian -- not to the best
pro prospect.
US college hockey has become an outstanding developmental system for NHL.
But for the most part, that has occurred by accident, not design. US
college hockey is its own end, not necessarily a means to another one.
The Hobey has served college hockey well in this regard. Only its first
recipient, Neal Broten (1981), went on to star in the NHL. Tom Kurvers
(1984), has been a journeyman defenseman. The other winners have made far
less impact.
"The question should be: Is he the best college player today?" said
Western Michigan coach Bill Wilkinson. "A guy could be 5-foot-5. It's not
whether he'll be the best pro player in two years or the best doctor in
three years."
The Hobey Baker Award should be an honor for the here and now.
It's for college hockey's MVP -- no matter what year he's in.
(end quoted material)
Thoughts? I would tend to disagree with Andy Baggot -- I think the quali-
fications for the Hobey deliberately exclude "length of service", and for a
good reason. The award is meant to recognize college hockey's overall best
player, not the one who has had the most impact over a four-year career.
However, in response to Matt Carlson, I DON'T think the voters should dis-
regard the "gobbledy-gook" about scholarship and service to college hockey,
precisely because it's COLLEGE hockey we are talking about. In considering
candidates for the NHL's Hart trophy, all you have to look at is on-ice per-
formance, but the college environment is different. Any player in college
hockey could probably make a considerable improvement by devoting more time
to hockey and less time to academics, but that's not what college sports is
about. Rather, a college hockey player should have a good mix of both
sports and academics -- otherwise, he (or she) is nothing more than a junior
league player who happens to hang out at a college. For that reason, I
think it's good that the Hobey also takes into account scholarship, sports-
manship, and so forth. I believe it is the only major college "best player"
award that does so.
Should Paul Kariya receive consideration? Well, is he the best player in
college hockey? In my opinion, he probably is -- at least, he makes the
short list. If he meets the other criteria (and as far as I know, he does),
he should not lose out *only* because he is a freshman. I'll also mention
that I don't think Coach Mason's MVP test is a fair one either. If you took
Paul Kariya away from Maine, the Black Bears would still win. He's missed
at least six games, and Maine's won them all. The Black Bears are a su-
premely talented team, and Kariya is an important part of that talent. If
you took Ted Drury away from Harvard, the Crimson would probably be in a lot
of trouble, so perhaps Drury is more valuable to his team than Kariya is to
Maine, but in my opinion, that isn't enough to say that Drury merits more
consideration than Kariya (which is not to say that Drury shouldn't be con-
sidered at all -- he definitely should).
--
Bill Fenwick | Send your HOCKEY-L poll responses to:
Cornell '86 and probably '94 | [log in to unmask]
LET'S GO RED!!
"Getting married was the best way I knew how to tick off my father-in-law."
-- Bob Saget
|
