DISCLAIMER:
I'm not trying, to flame. No, really! Just want to make my point clearer...
 
 
Mike Machnik quoth:
 
>Greenie said:
>>My personal problem with these recruiting practices is that these schools
>>(my beloved BU included) are going after 20- and 21-year old "kids" that
>>are dominating their leagues. By the time they're seniors in school,
>>they're 25 years old.
 
>But this isn't possible. If a player is 21 when he is dominating his
>league, he's only going to have 3 and maybe even 2 years of NCAA
>eligibility (depending on his birthday). You lose a year of eligibility
>for each season you play organized hockey once you turn 20.
 
Okay, you've spurned me on to do some research. So far, while looking
through the complete list of WCHA and CCHA ages, I've found over 50 players
in each division that are (or will be) 24 years old as seniors. Roughly 10
of these players are 25 (or will be) years old as seniors. [note: please
see my new post regarding my info-gathering, I'm making a list]
 
Considering the average age of a senior in college is 21.9 years old
(according to the Bureau of Higher Education), I think that this is a
little silly. Take into consideration that just about ALL of these players
are coming out of junior hockey programs, and it makes you wonder just what
the motivation is for these players to go get an education. What do they
do, wait until their college eligibility is at stake before going to
school?
 
>>This means that there are a lot of students out there who truly deserve a
>>shot at an education. Note here I don't say scholarship. Most kids who
>>play hockey can afford college with or without a scholarship -- maybe not
>>an expensive school, but they could certainly afford a school such as
>>Lowell, Merrimack, or UMass.
 
>Actually, Merrimack is upwards of $18-20,000 a year including tuition and
>room and board.
 
Yikes. My mistake. No insult to Merrimack intended, but on all of my visits
to the school (okay, they were at night) I didn't know it cost that much.
Still, there are a lot of other schools out there, such as Colorado College
and Denver University (which are not high-priced) yet go after the "talent"
rather than the student. Denver in particular has a remarkably high amount
of junior hockey recruits (as do the two Alaska schools, but I don't know
their prices). With such high amounts of junior hockey recruits, it does
make me wonder about academic commitment, both from the student and the
school.
 
 
>>This is how Harvard usually manages to have a solid team -- after all,
>>they're ivy league, which has restrictions on scholarships -- their
>>recruiters find students who are good enough for both tasks of attending
>>Harvard and playing hockey. Would these kids be accepted to Harvard
>>without hockey? Probably not.
 
>Some of those more familiar with the Ivies can surely elaborate, but I was
>under the impression that acceptance into an Ivy is not related to hockey
>skills. And, in fact, from things I am aware of, it is also the case for
>at least some of the HE schools too.
 
For the Ivies, the hockey players generally meet the minimum that the
League requires of student athletes. Without hockey (or football, soccer,
whatever), most of these kids wouldn't even come close to getting into to
the Ivies. It's also interesting to see that there are a large number of
freshman being accepted into Ivy hockey programs that have been playing
junior hockey for the last 2-3 years. Again, where's the academic
commitment?
 
>>It just disgusts me that more and more colleges are now looking for
>>"hockey players than can learn to be students," rather than "students who
>>can play hockey."
 
>Which colleges are these? I haven't seen any change for the worse in the
>way academics and hockey have been related, and if anything, in many
>cases, the change has been for the better.
 
I think looking at the rosters can tell you what colleges are looking for
athletes, what colleges are looking for students, and which are settling in
between. Compare the schools in the CCHA and WCHA (Hockey East and ECAC
information is currently lacking in detailed rosters), and you'll see that
the schools with higher academic reputations are recruiting fewer junior
hockey players and more high school students.
 
 
>An example...Martin Laroche and Casey Kesselring, two-thirds of
>Merrimack's all-sophomore line (before the last game when freshman Kris
>Porter replaced Kesselring who was out due to injury), both made the HE
>Academic Honor Roll last year with GPAs above 3.0. Kesselring's 3.63 led
>all of the ten Merrimack players (half the team) who made the Honor Roll.
>Kesselring's major is Computer Science...Laroche's is Mathematics.
 
Like you said, these are usually the exception to the rule. It's good to
see that Kesselring and Laroche are involved in demanding majors. However,
you can't measure academic achievement by GPA. For many majors at many
colleges, a GPA of 3.0 is not a big deal. And for many other non-athletic
students at these colleges, a GPA of 3.0 isn't even enough to maintain a
partial scholarship.
 
While I was at BU, I had a number of hockey players (and other student
athletes) in some of my classes, and lived on the same dorm floor (for
three years) as many hockey players. I typed (pure transcription, folks) a
lot of their papers for them, and tutored a few players. Throughout my time
with them I learned a lot about their interest in academics.
 
Many of these kids were NOT at BU to get a degree, and certainly wouldn't
have been considered for acceptance if not for hockey. I have heard the
same comments from many other fans all around hockey. Sure, we love these
30-plus point scorers, but that doesn't mean we think they're all great
students.
 
This is not to say that all, or even most hockey players (or any student
athlete for that matter) are not at school to be students. However, when
the schools go to Canada, Finland, Sweden, Russia, etc. to recruit
21-year-old freshmen, that's when I begin to dotbt one's commitment to
academics. If academics were the motivator, these athletes would have gone
to school SOMEWHERE and attempted to transfer, as many student athletes do,
rather than try to increase their athletic skills in hopes of being
"discovered" by a better team. For example, last year's Beanpot MVP, Ken
Rausch, was a walk-on at BU his freshman year. Made two apperances in games
his freshman year, both brief. As a high school senior he was told that
chances of his playing for the team were slim to none. His first year, he
rarely dressed. Over the years he worked his butt off, and last year was a
significant facor in BU's success. Another one of last year's "heroes" for
BU, Jacques Joubert, was a transfer from Princeton. Whatever his method or
motivation, he found a way to play for a "better" team without holding out
for 3 years in the juniors.
 
>BTW, if "whatever it takes" means violating NCAA rules, then I wouldn't
>expect any amount of pressure would get York to give in. But as far as I
>am concerned, all of this BC business is old news. BC is on the way back
>and everything I see is very positive. It won't be a 180 degree
>turnaround, but it will happen gradually.
 
Ahhh, but you forget. No college coach lasts very long if he can't "bend"
the rules. And if they get caught, it's never their fault. College sports
are all the same, no matter what the particular game is.
 
Colleges, alumni, and the local press put pressure on the colleges to WIN.
The press does what it feels is necessary in reporting on the academic
achievers in college sports, but it really only does that to cover its own
ass.
 
Unfortunate as it is, a college hockey player with a 30-point season (not
uncommon) will always get more accolades, more attention, and more pats on
the back than a college hockey player graduating with honors and a 10-point
season.
 
Like we've all said, none of this is anything new. But do any other college
sports recruit these "minor leagues" the way college hockey does?
Basketball and football sure don't, and from what I've watched of baseball
(College World Series, mostly) I don't see 24 year-olds who have been
drafted for the last 6 years stepping up to the plate.
 
 
 
Again, I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm flaming. This was, and still is, a
very sensitive subject for me.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.