This message apparently didn't transmit as AOL was having problems around
midnight Monday.  If this is a duplication, I apologize.
******************************************************************
 
>>>
[log in to unmask] (Rowe, Thomas) wrote:
 
Just a thought  - from the tone of the replies you are getting I don't think
your argument will fly unless you can state some (preferably multiple)
*specific* examples with names of schools and players where you believe an
unfair advantage is being generated.
<<<<<<<<
 
Tom, I can't think of a better way to set off a cyberholocaust than to tie the
comments to specific schools, particularly after seeing the uproar caused by
using a fictitious "Jock U" to express an idea for consideration.  I have no
specific schools in mind, though I gave examples of two contrasting situations
to illustrate that there are disparities of the type which, in principal,
concern me.  Even the less appealing program from that example isn't at what
I'd call Jock U.  Apparently Paula has offered a candidate, though it's not
one I'd agree with.  My Jock U. was hypothetical.  IMO, the fact that
opportunities for abuse and/or substantial disparity exist and could become
significant (as Div I expands) provides enough reason to discuss the subject.
 
Further, it isn't "my argument".  It's a suggestion I put forth for
consideration of what I think should be of interest to responsible college
sports fans.  If the suggestion deserves to die, the faster it dies for valid
reasons, the better.  I don't consider "valid reasons" those advanced by
someone who first needs to know whether it favors the schools he likes, or the
conclusions blurted out by someone who presumes I must be trying to put one
over.  The principal involved is all one needs to consider for a responsible
discussion.  If this group can't manage that, let the discussion die.
 
Curtis_T similarly asked:
 
    [Re my...]  "I don't see a level playing surface where, for
    example, one school with high academics fields a team with an
    average age of 20.2 against a competitor of no academic note
    skating 11 freshmen over the age of 21."
 
    A question- could you identify these two schools?
 
Yes I can, but there's no reason to, as I've stated above.  But I'll add, for
the benefit of those cowboys who fancy themselves so expert in analyzing
specious arguments that they shoot insults from the hip without bothering to
get the facts,... I'm not Catholic, I'm not Irish, I'm not an alumnus or a fan
of the school whose team's average age is 20.2, and I'm perfectly happy and
satisfied with the recruiting, prospects for the future, success, etc. of the
school I attended (Michigan) and satisfied that that school doesn't need any
help, and I'm even more satisfied with the program of the school I most
readily support, which has no hockey team or football team, . . . or male
students.
 
Having a computer to tear down tonight and beginning a trip on Tuesday, I
can't take part in further discussion.  Thanks to those who made an effort to
discuss this reasonably, including those who offered some very fine points by
private email.
 
Bob
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.