Greg writes:
>Mike writes:
>
>>Parker has a very valid point.  Hockey teams dress at least 20 players a game
>>and play at least 19.  By cutting the number of scholarships, you are forced
>>to play kids who you could not offer a scholarship to.
>
>Stop it, you're killin' me. Parker's "thinking" is absurd! It implies
>that scholarship schools have some god-given right to skate a full team
>of scholarship players, and that the NCAA is forcing them to skate kids
>picked haphazardly off the street. I just can't accept this "argument" at all.
 
I'll go along with your distinction just to make this point, although such a
distinction doesn't actually exist.
 
For those schools that choose to offer athletic scholarships to kids, it is
unfair to reduce the number of scholarships below the number of players
needed to ice a hockey team, while continuing to allow basketball and
football teams to offer more scholarships than are needed to put *their* teams
on the floor/field.
 
Can you give me just one reason why reducing scholarships from 20 to 18
is necessary?
 
>>  the so-called non-scholarship schools
>
>A school which does not offer athletic scholarships is just that: a
>school which does not offer scholarships based on athletic prowess. If
>they offer academic and need-based scholarships, the competition for
>these scholarships is open to *everyone* and the awards are made based
>on non-athletic criteria. The difference is real, and it lies in the
>school's philosophical approach to the importance of sports. You may
>not agree with it - but you should not willfully misrepresent it.
 
You are very much mistaken.  The competition for these scholarships is NOT
open to everyone per se.  A great hockey player is most certainly going to get
this type of aid over a typical student.  A coach is going to find a way to
get his players aid, and he is often working closely with the financial aid
departments at these schools.
 
You may choose not to believe it, but it still does happen.  Perhaps not
to the same degree everywhere, but I am aware of a number of cases which
support my argument.  Unfortunately I can't give specifics for obvious
reasons, which I realize doesn't make my argument look very good, but I'll
live with that rather than reveal things I think I should not.
 
 
- mike