> >Consider- eliminate all athletic
> >scholarships  <snip>
 
 
From the "Moot Topic" category of off-season discussions (since this will
never happen of course...)
 
> as the stream of
> good Canadian players in search of US college education in exchange for
> hockey skills dries up and blows away.
 
I'm sure this would come as a surprise to the Canadians at the
non-scholarship schools.  :-)
 
The simple truth is that student-athletes in need still receive need-based
scholarships at non-athletic scholarship institutions.  Whether or not a
school attracts a prospective student depends upon what the school has to
offer.  What are the fans of non-scholarship schools telling us about their
institutions when they state that without paying their athletes their
school cannot attract them?  There are plenty of high caliber academic
programs that currently offer scholarships which would have no difficulty
at all continuing to attract athletes who had to pass the same standards of
demonstrated need or academic excellence.  In fact, a lot of the
scholarship
schools would be in a superior position because they are cheaper than their
(current) non-scholarship brethren.
 
Do people think abolishing athletic scholarships would make much difference
as to the distribution of talent?  (1) I don't, and (2) I would think that
arguing this is tantamount to arguing that a given school is only worthy in
the eyes of prospective athletes because it will pay them to play even
though they would otherwise be able to afford tuition, repayment of loans,
etc.
 
Let's say I am a high school senior about to go to Michigan on scholarship,
when the sky falls and athletic scholarships evaporate.  I then get
funneled into the merit / need scholarship system.  If I can afford to pay,
I get that choice.  If I can't, I get the loan / grant package any other
student would get.  It isn't as if I say, "the heck with it -- if they
don't give me an athletic scholarship, I'm going to work at Wallmart."  I
chose to go to Michigan because it's a damn good school and (if I'm good) a
good hockey program where I'll be visible for pro scouting down the line.
Neither of these things has changed -- Michigan is still as attractive an
option to me.
 
What about the athletes who would opt instead to go into the paid juniors
system?  Why is this different than today? -- they have that option now,
and
if they don't take it it is presumably because they recognize that going to
college and getting a degree will help them more than not doing so.  Even
though the cost of education is very high, it still gives back much more
than it costs.  It's the old short-term opportunity cost vs. long-term
income equation.
 
From  the "macro" perspective of looking at college hockey overall, I don't
see scholarships making all that much of a difference.  That's not an
endorsement of or attack on athletic scholarships --
just an opinion that the result is as moot as is the odds that the system
will ever change.
 
- Greg
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.