I tried hard not to respond, but unfortunately, I must.
Bob wrongfully assumed I went to some sort of JOCK U. (whatever that is
-
Bob, you brought up the term first, not me).
Being associated with Princeton over the years, the average age of their
players are also older than some other schools.
Part of the reason for this is, Princeton has to always be on the
lookout for late bloomers, among other things. They can't possibly
compete in recruiting against Michigan, BU, or even Clarkson, for
players that are blue-chip 18-year olds. Same goes for many other
schools.
So Bob, my point was, why would you bring up this whole thread unless
you thought there were schools out there that were gaining unfair
advantages simply by the type of player they allowed in. I won't
disagree there -- Every school that's not an Ivy League school or
similar (like RPI) has an unfair advantage because of who they can get
in .... but I'm not going to argue that Michigan or Michigan State
should be penalized. I'm sure their players are meeting proper NCAA
standards -- and probably many of them are pretty smart kids.
But what was the point of your whole argument? --- that's what I still
don't get.
I assume since you listed yourself as being from Michigan, that you
thought there were other schools that had unfair advantages because they
recruit older and "dumber" players --- and reading between the lines, it
was clear to me that that is what you were getting at.
If I'm wrong -- correct me.
But if you want to take the high road and complain that the PWR isn't
factoring in everything that would even the playing field, you're
opening a big can of worms ... because, as I said, the average SAT score
at the Ivy League schools and some others, is I'm sure better than
Michigan, Minnesota, etc... - but so is the average age.
So really then, again, what's the point? Honestly, what inspired your
original post?
AW
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
