>>>> This (academics vs. athletics) is a big dilemma in virtually all colleges
and  universities right now. Bob's suggestion, while probably impracticle and
certainly not something the NC$$ will consider any time soon, is interesting,
and well worth discussing.  Let's not degenerate the discussion by sniping at
each other's
individual schools.  <<<<<<
 
Thank you, George.
 
I should apologize to the apparent alumnus of Jock U who thinks I
intentionally dissed his alma mater.  Gosh, I never even suspected there was
such a place, much less that its grads (I assume they graduated) would take
offense at my self-righteous effort to put one over on 'em.
 
George, I agree about the impracticability of relying on the NC$$ to adopt
such a policy, but I think the suggestion itself is quite practical.  It's
costfree and simple to administer and enforce and it's timely, considering the
talk about substantial expansion of Div I.  It's certainly more timely before
expansion than after 50% more teams are claiming they don't want their
recruitng policies changed in midstream.
 
It merely affects the incentive of the coach at recruiting time. It gives the
coach who's out recruiting wringers some real risks to consider when he'd
otherwise be licking his chops about how his new mercenaries will fatten his
national championship chances. It instills an appreciation for academics and
graduation rates in the coach who otherwise couldn't care less.  The PWR is an
appropriate tool because it's conveniently available, relates specifically to
hockey, and would otherwise be the determining factor for empowering the
success of the "wringers only" recruiting policy.
 
I'm not sure whether the SAT/ACT factor has a proper place in my proposal.  If
it does, its consequences should be weighted less than the age/experience
factor.  Conscientious non-geniuses shouldn't be penalized for not being
smarter, though a program which systematically loads up with obvious non-
student material should be discouraged.
 
The real focus should be to discourage the program which excludes the
athletically qualified 17-year-old premed student because he didn't first
waste three years of his life in Junior A hockey.  That's not what educational
institutions should be about and those which responsibly promote student-
athletes shouldn't be penalized.  My thoughts on the Average Age Index attempt
to address that and it should, IMHO, be the weightier consideration.
 
Bob
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.