In a message dated 98-02-21 11:45:57 EST, [log in to unmask] writes:
 
<< Do we compute grades in this marvelous calculation?  If so, do we adjust
for grade inflation?   >>>>>
 
Ken,
 
If you're referring to my suggestion,. . . it has nothing to do with grades.
My suggestion is intended to influence recruiting in the direction of
producing STUDENT-athletes who are allowed to compete on an equal basis, to
the extent practicable, for a spot on their own team and in competition with
other teams.
 
I've felt that two factors particularly work against that, a disparity in
age/experience levels and a disparity in academic burdens.  The former often
results from recruiting practices intended to reap a benefit from promoting
that disparity, sometimes with complete disregard for any semblance of a
student posture. I've been reminded by Mike Machnik that it can also result
from legitimate economic or personal needs which delay college entry.
 
Disparities in academic burdens create disparities in the time athletes can
devote to their sport and, accordingly, to gaining competitive advantage.
They can be the result of intentional disregard for individual student
responsibilities or significant differences in the academic demands among
member institutions.  To the extent they result from a flagrant disregard of
the student's academic role, they work against the interests of legitimate
student-athletes who compete for a place on a team and also against other
teams which maintain reasonable academic standards.
 
Anything so far that's not self-evident?  I don't think so.
 
It occurs to me that disparities of these types which produce unwanted results
could probably be addressed in a quantitative system which could, when used in
conjunction with the quantitative PWR, remove the rewards incentive to recruit
in a way which promotes objectionable results.  It could also be useful for
smoothing the inequities of disparities which, although honestly and
fortuitously created, grant one an unfair advantage; a "handicapping" concept.
I haven't tried to produce that computation, but I think it shouldn't be hard
to produce what is merely a "broadbrush" influencer, not a scientific
determination to the nth decimal place.
 
My personal concern is more for the inequities of age and experience than over
legitimate differences in academic standing. I think there's a substantially
unfair disparity produced when one player is allowed to concentrate on
developing his playing skills for several additional years.  Though I've long
felt we should be allowed to use major leaguers at Williamsport to crush those
damn Tiawanese 12-year-olds, I just can't bring myself to the same feeling
about college hockey.
 
My concern about academic disparity is mainly for those things which indicate
an absence of academic intent, but the adjusted PWR could as well perform a
handicapping function to level large disparities between schools if that's
deemed useful.  I'm not still sure an academic factor has a useful place in
this, but, if so, I
envisioned it based on players' pre-entrance scores to discourage the
recruitment of players without academic intent.  If a handicapping result
reflecting differences between schools is the goal, the average SATs of the
student body are probably more useful.
 
How much of all this is useful?  The handicapping considerations are useful
for theoretical discussions.  My original academic factor based on players'
SATs, properly weighted, is probably too insignificant in effect to put into
practice by itself.  But I think the disparity in playing experience from late
entry by as much as four years, whether through an intentional abuse of the
educational process or as a fortuitous byproduct of justifiable delayed
enrollment, has a substantial effect on deleveling the playing surface and is
an appropriate target for a PWR adjustment.
 
Bob
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.