<p>^^ Good try at slamming the place, parent1986, but the athletic issues at CU did not involve the Colorado Springs location in any way. My kid went to a running camp at the CS campus a number of years ago and it was great!</p>
<p>Technically true, but misleading. Most Canadians playing in the NHL don’t go to college; there, the best players usually play in “major junior” leagues before going pro. And very few European hockey players play college hockey because they’ve got their own professional and amateur systems, though you’re starting to see a few Scandinavians at schools like Michigan and Minnesota, and that’s likely to grow. But in 2011-12, a record 300 former U.S. college hockey players played in the NHL, representing a little over 30% of all NHL players, and almost certainly a majority of the Americans playing in the NHL, given that the league is still predominantly Canadians and these days heavily European as well. In fact, big-time college hockey is now the established path to the pros for top U.S. hockey prospects. There are still some who will be drafted out of HS and shipped off to Canadian major junior leagues before signing professional contracts, but even a lot of those with major junior experience are coming back into U.S. college hockey programs for finishing before jumping to the professional level, then often spending one or more years in minor league professional hockey before making their NHL debut. And college hockey is also a place where undrafted free agents can develop and showcase their skills and talents, and get a second look that may lead to a pro career.</p>
<p>Top collegiate producers of NHL talent in 2011-12: Michigan with 23 players, followed by Wisconsin (22), Boston College (21), North Dakota (17), Michigan State (16), Minnesota (15), and Colorado College (14). </p>
<p>The State of Minnesota dominates as the producer of college-to-NHL hockey talent; 49 of the 300 former collegians playing in the NHL in 2011-12 were Minnesota natives.</p>
<p>*The NCAA sets maximum numbers of scholarships per sport, not minimums. Any school or any conference can elect to use fewer than the maximum at any time. *</p>
<p>OK…</p>
<p>So, then why are schools dropping certain men’s sports because over the scholarship/Title IX issue? For instance, Vandy dropped its Track & Field team because of the scholarship issue. Is it because it’s not just the scholarship issue that is at stake for Title IX? Or is it because maybe Vandy’s conference expects (demands???) the awarding of scholarships??? Or is it still up to each school?</p>
<p>Because if there are 30 spots available on a track team, it doesn’t matter if scholarships are given or not it’s 30 spots for males that must be compensated on the female side of things.</p>
<p>I do not think there is anything admirable about societies that do not help enable their elite athletes to become college educated. Especially because so many elite athletes are also academically inclined.</p>
<p>Bay, are you referring to the US? Are you suggesting our GOVERNMENT support Olympic athletes?</p>
<p>Most societies outside of the US that don’t educate athletes are Totalitarian or poor, which accounts for the lack of an education and training.</p>
<p>No, parent1986, I think our manner of enabling elite athletes to pursue higher education at the same time they pursue their athletic goals is superior to relegating them to training camps. Our present system has proved to be effective and successful. My comment has nothing to do with government funding.</p>
<p>Trafalca is going to the Olympics and his MISTRESS received a Seventy seven thousand dollar
tax write off in 2010 for the care and feeding of the horse.</p>