Sunday News (and spleen venting)
| Memo to Julie Wilson and Ron White: WSHL does not stand for "Without Scholarships Hockey League"... Reducing or dropping tuition as a recruitment tool does not impair NCAA eligibility. If it somehow did, USA Hockey would face a nationwide amateurism crisis - starting at the top with the USHL, whose teams pay for billeting (not that there's anything wrong with that, because there's not) and extending down to any team that does not charge the regulatory maximum for tuition. Teams are under NO obligation to charge a full rate of tuition, or any tuition at all for that matter. "Not charging" does NOT equal "paying" players. Wilson, having come over from the CSHL, should have known better. Ron White has no excuse, but at least some folks that know better have tried to set him straight. I've written and re-written this piece about a half-dozen different ways, but the bottom line is that it's been proven once again that certain people have no business being in control of a junior league. Am I being harsh? Yeah, probably... but for every stupid WSHL story that I post to the blog, there's usually 2-3 stories I leave out. The only thing that keeps the league from being universally regarded as the worst are a handful of programs that maintain a decent national reputation. How they tolerate the league's lack of operational capacity is beyond me. But hey, since I'm the one that failed to realize the WSHL could still sink to new depths of idiocy, it is I that deserves the COME ON... |
posted by Marc Foster at 7/23/2006 12:20:00 PM
Comments on "Sunday News (and spleen venting)"
-
Anonymous said ... (9:12 PM, July 23, 2006) :
-
Anonymous said ... (2:38 AM, July 24, 2006) :
-
Marc Foster said ... (8:00 AM, July 24, 2006) :
-
Anonymous said ... (10:08 AM, July 24, 2006) :
-
Anonymous said ... (9:17 AM, July 25, 2006) :
-
Anonymous said ... (1:43 PM, July 25, 2006) :
-
Anonymous said ... (8:57 PM, July 28, 2006) :
post a commentWhat's up with Tulsa and the WSHL? I miss something?
Marc, Marc, Marc, all this neat info on your Blog and you mess it all up with a HUGE mistake.
"Reducing or dropping tuition as a recruitment tool does not impair NCAA eligibility."
According to USA Hockey and the NCAA it does. The only time a program can drop or reduce rates is in the case of a player in need(poor). Any other situation would violate NCAA rules. How does the USHL and the NAHL get away with not charging you ask? Because they don't charge anyone to play. You can't just charge the players that suck you know ;).
Do teams do it, yeah, should they, well, no. All players should be treated equal. I know when I Jr.'s in Canada some kids were getting paid and others didn't. Things got rough when those of us who got paid didn't perform as well as those who didn't get paid.
If you want to know where I got the info, USA Hockey meetings, CO Springs.
I guess I'm confused, because it's certainly acceptably to treat athletes different within the NCAA (and I seriously doubt it's due to financial need). You have teams that offer partial (or even no) scholarships to some players, and full rides to others. "How many times do players hear "come play for me, and I'll get you a scholly in your sophomore year"?!???
You've misinterpreted my statement about the NAHL and USHL. They used to be able to charge tuition, but not all did. In addition, some teams dropped billet fees for some players, and not for others.
Finally, nowhere in the statements I've seen by White and Wilson was financial need discussed. In addition, where does treating players equally begin? If it's at the team level, then some teams in a league would have a recruiting advantage over others. If it's at the league level, then you've given an entire league a recruiting advantage over another.
If this were an issue with USA Hockey, why not mandate equal tuition or enact specific language that pegs tuition for a level league, or team?
There is nothing wrong with a team charging less than another team. They don't have to charge the max. That is ridiculous. The NCAA issues comes when you scholoarship a player based on abilities. That is a no no. But if Tulsa charges $6000, and Phoenix charges $4000, there is nothing wrong with that. For the WSHL to say there is, well, as you said Marc, it just piles on the long list of WSHL screw ups.
No blog since Sunday? COME ON!!!
Just a question. Can't the league have it's own rules? As long as they don't violate USAH rules. I'm not saying it should be that way, but I can see reasoning behind the decision.
Why don't we just eliminate the undertone here. The rest of the WSHL does not want the poker players to run away with the league. I am old school WSHL, the days of the Mariners, Mountaineers, and Ice Dogs, where players played for free, and the rich kids paid for it.
I do not remember to many folks being fond of Ventura and thier Jr "A" Roster, but nobody complained loud then. So why now?
Be carefull of what you ask for WSHL, if I was the owner of Full Tilt, I would be seeking a court injunction against any baloney rule like this.