CIS Hockey Funding (over/under table)

[FreddyFoyle]

If only I had known that I could have gained expertise on recruiting by sitting in the stands watching CIS hockey, I wouldn't have spent so much time engaged in actively recruiting players to play CIS hockey. Silly me.

I live in the US now, so I can no longer be engaged with my program, but I have engaged in recruiting battles, and been on the winning and losing ends. I am most proud of the fact that two of my recruits have successfully completed their PhDs.

Sigh. I told myself I'd stop feeding the troll, but my unfortunate stubborn streak just won't let it go. So as I thought, you are casting aspersions from afar and are not currently involved with CIS hockey. Glad we cleared that up. Congrats, seriously, on having recruits complete an advanced degree. It is what most of us who chat on this area of the board are most interested in -- seeing student-athletes become successful in school and their careers after entertaining us with their play on the ice.

I've only been interviewing and talking to AUS players and coaches for more than 15 years, and covered 13 University Cups where I've had the opportunity to talk to other CIS players and coaches. All that time gathering qualitative data on why players chose the schools they did, among other things, is wasted time I guess because I'm wasn't a CIS recruiter. OK, then you've got me there.

My mistake. I misread your post, but found it telling that you were focused on pro contracts.

Well, as I has mentioned in a previous post, one of the factors that many players told me influenced their decision to play for an AUS team was their desire to play pro hockey after their time in the CIS, and their belief that the competitiveness of the AUS was going to help them improve their game and make the next step, since guys they knew (or heard of) had done just that.

I've written many things in this prolonged dialogue, but I'm pretty certain I never claimed that there was one single reason why someone would choose an AUS team, nor focused on one factor.

But, I was not aware that the OUA differentiated between the francophone and anglophone teams. It certainly didn't when I was there. Does the AUS treat Moncton differently?

Nice deflection move. Projection much? A while ago you brought up the English/French language factor in explaining how certain OUA schools had a specific, and understandable, edge in recruiting Francophone players. That was the only reason I tried that side exercise in eliminating UQTR from the "UCup winning math", since it would probably be unlikely that the average Anglophone hockey player would choose to study at UQTR.

Of course the AUS doesn't treat Moncton any differently (other than sometimes, and not often enough, adding bilingual public address announcements in visiting rinks).

And sometimes the players surprise us. Right now UNB has two Francophones from Quebec studying in their second language and playing important roles on the team. This has been a pretty common practice on Dal and STU teams who've done a much better job over the years recruiting Francophones from the Q than UNB. Much as Moncton would like to have exclusive rights to them as in the old days for the Montreal Canadiens ...

You're right. Pete Belliveau was relieved of his duties because he lacked charm.

We still don't know officially why Pete was let go, and maybe won't even after the CIS gets done sitting on their investigation of the Dal program. Pete's a charming guy, so of course that can't be the reason.

I know that you are obsessed with facts, but I also know that people selectively choose the information they seek. Perhaps you need to have a recruit ask you for money and then choose a different school to believe that it happens

.

I know some, maybe most, players ask for money. They only get one chance to get their education funded. Just because another school might offer them AFA money that your program couldn't match doesn't mean any rules were broken. That sounds more like jumping to a conclusion based on sour grapes.

I also understand, talking to coaches in the AUS, that the players coming from Junior A are often the most concerned about money because they don't have the same guaranteed education packages the QMJHL, OHL, and WHL offer. When a player presents you a shopping list of demands, and you don't match them, and he then goes to another school it is understandable to assume that another coach gave in and perhaps bent some rules. But we don't necessarily know that for sure, do we, and in this country folks are innocent until proven guilty.

So that's why I keep reacting to folks who insinuate that the only reason a hockey player would pass over the elite universities in his home province and go out to the Maritimes, where they let anyone into their schools, is because he was bought off.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

Miami, why don't you do us all a favour and share your chi-square spreadsheet somewhere like GoogleDocs so we can all learn from your work and discuss it.

Because you gotta admit, when it comes to simple probabilities of winning, when one group wins a championship tournament 4 out of 16 times (25%), and another wins it 7 out of 16 times (44%) in the same period, and the first group, the OUA, has more teams competing for the prize thanks to their two guaranteed spots each tournament, it is pretty difficult to grasp that it "is not significantly different from chance" that the AUS has a more dominant record on the national stage.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

Alpine, I agree that the expansion teams in the OUA do create more spots for student-athletes who would prefer to study in French, and this may make it a bit more challenging for schools who previously cornered that market.

There also seems to be more and more Francophones from the Q each year who accept the challenge to study in English (dpn't tell the Quebec language cops ...).

The roster caps in the AUS next season will probably make available a dozen or more skaters who will have to play in the other two conferences if they want to play CIS hockey.

 

[MiamiHockey]

I don't think that we needed any kind of statistical analysis to tell us that the team that runs out of the most skilled players, and has fewer players to replace them with will be "unfairly" affected. But thanks for that.

You missed the point.

Increasing the role of luck increases the likelihood of an upset, even though each team is equally likely to have injuries.

Understanding that requires some comprehension of distributions of goals scored.

Rather than try to explain it to you, I'll put in a link explaining a similar concept ... 3-point shooting in basketball ...

http://hoopvision.blogspot.com/2013/03/finding-upset-three-pointers.html

Like 3-point shooting, injuries will increase the variance of goals scored. A priori, this increases the likelihood of an upset.

A nice summary of research on the need for underdogs to utilize higher-variance strategies to increase their chances at an upset can be found in Malcolm Gladwell's work, or here ...

http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/05/david-strategies-and-goliath-strategies.html

Those are the facts.

 

[MiamiHockey]

I should have been a bit clearer ... if two teams are equally good, a priori, increasing the effect of potential injuries (through roster cap limits) will not favour one team over the other. So, if you believe that, for example, Acadia and St Mary's are equally good, the roster cap will not favour one team over the other.

It ONLY favours underdogs, a priori. Given that all of the discussion about the roster cap revolves around UNB, and that UNB fans believe that their team is better than all of the other AUS teams, this analysis matters for you.

Again, just the facts.

 

[MiamiHockey]

Miami, why don't you do us all a favour and share your chi-square spreadsheet somewhere like GoogleDocs so we can all learn from your work and discuss it.
Because you gotta admit, when it comes to simple probabilities of winning, when one group wins a championship tournament 4 out of 16 times (25%), and another wins it 7 out of 16 times (44%) in the same period, and the first group, the OUA, has more teams competing for the prize thanks to their two guaranteed spots each tournament, it is pretty difficult to grasp that it "is not significantly different from chance" that the AUS has a more dominant record on the national stage.

The reason I did a proper statistical analysis is because, repeatedly, you have stated that you only deal with facts, and seem to have presumed that you had all of the facts and I had none. Statistics can tell us what the facts are.
The beauty of statistical tests is that they can tell you if what you are seeing is supported by the data. Your hypothesis is that AUS teams are more likely to win the University Cup (because the best AUS teams are better than the best OUA/CW teams). My hypothesis is that is not true, and that the best teams from each league are equally strong - and thus getting into the University Cup is most important thing. The beauty of statistics is that, using the data we have observed, we can test your hypothesis against mine.
To be honest, if you don’t use know how to use Microsoft Excel, posting the file online wouldn’t help, because you wouldn't know what you are looking at. If you do know how to use Microsoft Excel, this is very easy to test yourself - just look online for an example.
To explain this more clearly, imagine that we had a 6-sided die. Your hypothesis is that this die is weighted - that the AUS(s) side is (are) more likely to come up because the best AUS teams are better. The alternative hypothesis is that it is not weighted, and that all 6 sides are equally likely to come up. In other words - that it is a normal die.
Let's imagine that you rolled the die 16 times. How often would you expect each side to come up? Well, roughly 16/6 = 2.7 times for each side. Of course, we've all played board games long enough to know that sh%t happens, and sometimes you end up rolling 4 1's in a row. Does that mean that the die is weighted, or is it just chance?
The chi-square test is a beautiful test because it tests the probability that the results you see are due to chance.
In the 16 University Cups, the OUA has had 41 teams, CW 27, AUS 28. So, the expected number of Cup wins for each conference would be:
OUA = 16 x (41 / 96) = 6.8
CW = 16 x (28 / 96) = 4.7
AUS = 16 x (27 / 96) = 4.5
So, the question for your hypothesis is whether 7 is significantly more than 4.5?
Like all scientists (including the ones you rely on to find cures for cancer and to build your bridges), I use the standard of 95% certainty to say that, yes, the hypothesis is supported. This chi-square test falls well short of that, at around 70%.
Those are the scientific facts.
And, BTW, I worked for CIS teams in various recruiting / coaching capacities from 2001-2010, and I am still in constant contact with my coaching colleagues discussing these matters. Do us all a favour and stop acting like I don’t know CIS hockey. You may not agree with what I have to say, which is fine, but it should be clear to you by now that my opinions are not based on guesswork.

 

[leafhky88]

As someone from Ontario and who went to school in Ontario, if I was a top major junior recruit looking to play pro after CIS, the AUS would be the number 1 choice for me.

1) level of play - top to bottom, almost every team is stacked with former major junior players, good fan support, and recent national results have shown the strength of this conference. These players have reached the pinnacle of junior hockey, and spent their whole life trying to play the highest level they can. Most already view going to the CIS as an unwanted step backwards in their hockey development, but having rosters stacked with former Captains and leading scorers from across the country may change this.

2) pro opportunities - typical major junior players are playing major junior with the intent to play pro hockey at some point in their careers. As Foyle has mentioned, the number of players leaving the AUS conference right now with minor pro, European and AHL contracts is very high.

3) academic choice - this is also more advantageous in the AUS in my opinion. As Miami has indicated, the average major junior player's academic average is likely around a low 70. While there are exceptions, most of these guys are stronger at hockey than they are academics. It has been documented the number of AUS players enrolled in programs across the board, including programs like business, which is popular among AUS players. Should an OHL player remain in Ontario, business schools such as Western, Queens, and Laurier have cutoffs that begin at around 87% for the lowest (Laurier). If players remain in Ontario, their choice of program is likely to be limited due to cutoffs that are simply too high. If you can enroll out East in a program you can succeed and actually want to be in, receive an academic and athletic scholarship, why not, when at home you have no chance of even gaining entry, and if you do get in, you are competing on a curve with students hand picked from a giant population centre?

The advantage of the OUA to me from a hockey perspective is for major junior and other players who are looking to get minutes, and play valuable minutes to contribute to their development. Players who may be buried on the 4th line or in the stands in the AUS could get top 6 or top 4 time in the OUA, a conference which is getting more and more major junior players and getting stronger in the process.

I will not comment on money being a draw, as I am a fan from the stands, I do not really know what happens. Is it possible top schools like UNB and SMU among others give money to players? Possibly, but I have no evidence that suggests they either do, or do so more than any OUA or CW team.

As for the roster cap, I personally look forward to this. I agree with Foyle that this might lead to more fringe prospective players (like Maritime QMJHL "tweeners") having to move West to Ontario. While selfish, I personally enjoy seeing players from all across Canada populate OUA rosters and first hand seeing how players from the different leagues (both major junior and tier II) stack up against each other.

 

[STUTOMMIES]

Sigh. I told myself I'd stop feeding the troll, but my unfortunate stubborn streak just won't let it go.

Why do you have to call him names? Just because his arguments make better sense than yours do, does it really give you the right? This board is not controlled by you and your opinions are not the only ones that matter.

Me saying this sounds silly considering I call you Squirrels but once again people call the Leafs "buds" and Canadiens "Habs" so I think it is fair game.

Finally, "Buds" and "Habs" are accepted nicknames, and apparently developed by their own fans. "Squirrels" is seen as pejorative, since it is a label affixed by their opponents and not developed by UNB fans (much like the perjorative "Pids" name once hurled by UNB fans towards STU). So not the same. But really, I don't care what nickname you choose to use for the V-Reds, as long as you don't try to convince the Internetverse that "Squirrels" is an affectionate term for the team dreamed up by UNB fans.

Its Squirrels, not Skunks. There is/was an acceptance of the name by UNB and it is just a nickname that has been with UNB for over 50 years now. Opponents may use it and may have even developed it in some manner but citizens of the City of Fredericton used it and perpetuated it. I joke about it but there are a lot of worse things to be called. Cute and cuddly Squirrels, love one today internetverse!!

 

[FreddyFoyle]

Chi-Square is inappropriate statistical test

(I don't have my old university stats text books in front of me, so I'll rely on some web links.)

Pearson's chi-squared test is not the appropriate test for this small sample size.

"If the estimated data in any given cell is below 5, then there is not enough data to perform a Chi-square test."
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~clight/chisquared.htm

"The approximation to the chi-squared distribution breaks down if expected frequencies are too low. It will normally be acceptable so long as no more than 20% of the events have expected frequencies below 5."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson's_chi-squared_test

As you pointed out, the expected random outcome for University Cup wins since 1998 for Canada West would be 4.7, and 4.5 for AUS. Both less than 5. That's also two/thirds (66.7%) of our frequencies.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

Why do you have to call him names? Just because his arguments make better sense than yours do, does it really give you the right? This board is not controlled by you and your opinions are not the only ones that matter.

Me saying this sounds silly considering I call you Squirrels but once again people call the Leafs "buds" and Canadiens "Habs" so I think it is fair game.

You may be right. Troll is a loaded word. Most people people apply the label to someone who appears to only be writing posts designed to get a reaction from other readers (and may or may not believe what they write, but only that it is designed to get the desired reaction). That doesn't appear to be MiamiHockey's motivation; he just has a strong dissenting view to my "innocent until proven guilty" view of cash being the dominant reason why players from outside the region chose to play hockey in the AUS, and isn't keen on my conjecture that the AUS strength-of-conference is exhibited by their 7 wins in the last 16 Univeristy Cup tournaments. So troll is probably inappropriate.

I would disagree that his arguments make better sense that mine, or others here who disagree with him. We have differing opinions, and I have gone to [too] great lengths to attempt differentiate the difference between opinion and facts, and to try to determine bias. Thus this statistical wormhole we now find ourselves in.

Finally, "Buds" and "Habs" are accepted nicknames, and apparently developed by their own fans. "Squirrels" is seen as pejorative, since it is a label affixed by their opponents and not developed by UNB fans (much like the perjorative "Pids" name once hurled by UNB fans towards STU). So not the same. But really, I don't care what nickname you choose to use for the V-Reds, as long as you don't try to convince the Internetverse that "Squirrels" is an affectionate term for the team dreamed up by UNB fans.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

I should have been a bit clearer ... if two teams are equally good, a priori, increasing the effect of potential injuries (through roster cap limits) will not favour one team over the other. So, if you believe that, for example, Acadia and St Mary's are equally good, the roster cap will not favour one team over the other.

It ONLY favours underdogs, a priori. Given that all of the discussion about the roster cap revolves around UNB, and that UNB fans believe that their team is better than all of the other AUS teams, this analysis matters for you.

Again, just the facts.

Like I said, we get it. Your statistical analysis does give one example of what we know out here: that the other AUS coaches, through their AD's, brought in a roster cap to "level the field" and reduce a perceived UNB recruiting advantage that makes them all "underdogs."

The other coaches keep telling the Gleaner that UNB has the best recruits. One of UNB's strengths in the past was that even if they lost a similar number of key players to injury as their opponents, they had more and better replacements than the other teams sitting in the stands. Coaches were jealous of the quality of UNB's "spares", and believed that some could be everyday players on their teams. So they crafted this idea of a roster cap on skaters to "free up" more quality players in the recruiting pool. Some coaches also seem to believe that UNB sometimes recruited particular extra players just to keep them away from their opponents. This might be true in some cases. Thus the recruiting wars, and worsening personal relations between some AUS coaches and UNB's Gardiner MacDougall.

 

[STUTOMMIES]

Like I said, we get it. Your statistical analysis does give one example of what we know out here: that the other AUS coaches, through their AD's, brought in a roster cap to "level the field" and reduce a perceived UNB recruiting advantage that makes them all "underdogs."

The other coaches keep telling the Gleaner that UNB has the best recruits. One of UNB's strengths in the past was that even if they lost a similar number of key players to injury as their opponents, they had more and better replacements than the other teams sitting in the stands. Coaches were jealous of the quality of UNB's "spares", and believed that some could be everyday players on their teams. So they crafted this idea of a roster cap on skaters to "free up" more quality players in the recruiting pool. Some coaches also seem to believe that UNB sometimes recruited particular extra players just to keep them away from their opponents. This might be true in some cases. Thus the recruiting wars, and worsening personal relations between some AUS coaches and UNB's Gardiner MacDougall.

Holy cow Foyle. I don't want to cross the line in respect for the other AUS posters on here that are very smartly avoiding talking about this subject. The more I read, the more I think of an old saying "It is better to be quiet and thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt."

In regard to the cap, it is a cost saving measure that benefits all the schools, even UNB, in a budgetary sense. It isn't perfect and it really shouldn't affect UNB's great recruiting but it will reduce costs and I know that most of the Universities in the AUS are looking for every penny they can find.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

... the more I think of an old saying "It is better to be quiet and thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt."

This.

In regard to the cap, it is a cost saving measure that benefits all the schools, even UNB, in a budgetary sense.

While this may be a consequence of the roster cap, it was not its designed intent. Perhaps call it the "Wudrick Rule" for one of its sparks.

 

[UNB Bruins Fan]

I don't buy the 'cost saving measure' argument....if a school is penny pinching they could have as few players as they wanted regardless of the roster cap. This just prevents teams who are willing to have larger rosters from doing so, which isn't really fair. If school A wants to put more resources into men's hockey than team B they should be allowed. The roster cap allows teams who don't want to/can't spend to be more competitive, plain and simple.

 

[STUTOMMIES]

So if I understand the arguments on here correctly, UNB fans are 100% adamant that no money, compensation, etc. etc "incentives" are going to their players, everything is good.

Roster cap is bad because UNB is not allowed to invest more money than other teams in the AUS on having more players whenever they see fit. The fans are mad because the other teams wanted to see a deceleration of costs from their hockey programs because they are not able to spend as much as UNB, who is only spending what they are allowed to spend within the rules, which is the exact same amount as all the other teams.

I'm not trying to twist anything here, just want clarity. If I am wrong about my outlook above, fair enough, just wondering.

 

[MiamiHockey]

Pearson's chi-squared test is not the appropriate test for this small sample size.

"If the estimated data in any given cell is below 5, then there is not enough data to perform a Chi-square test."

As you pointed out, the expected random outcome for University Cup wins since 1998 for Canada West would be 4.7, and 4.5 for AUS. Both less than 5. That's also two/thirds (66.7%) of our frequencies.

At least you're beginning to understand the issues. Do you have another test to propose, or do you just wish to reject the chi-square and rely on nothing?

The reason the chi-square struggles with low frequencies is the same reason that your argument falls apart: a lack of observations.

To put it in perspective, if you flipped a coin 6 times, and it came up heads 4 times, would you conclude that it is weighted to heads? What if you flipped it 60 times, and it came up heads 40 times?

A chi-square test needs enough observations. 16 is pretty close, and it would only be an issue if we're trying to decide between 90% certainty and 95% certainty. It's not that close.

Anyways, here are two other tests to run, each of which conclude that the AUS is not winning a disproportionate number of championships:
- logistic regression ... more complex, and I did this one too, and the result is the same
- Bayesian multinomial logistic regression ... fancier technique, more difficult to run, NO sensitivity to the limited number of observations, and the same result.

I honestly hadn't picked up on the troll comment. I had thought we were engaged in moderately intelligent dialogue. Thanks for proving me wrong.

 

[STUTOMMIES]

I honestly hadn't picked up on the troll comment. I had thought we were engaged in moderately intelligent dialogue. Thanks for proving me wrong.

The joke is on you. It is much easier to call you names and call into question your credibility than admit anything.

And to defend my Squirrel friends there is plenty of truth to everything they say, good league, good teams, good education, easy travel, friendly people, fan interest, etc etc.

 

[Rob]

AUS does have the best attendance in the CIS. The only team that really struggles is Dalhousie. I noticed that some OUA teams don't even bother counting fans at the games.

 

[unbNewf]

When it comes to UNB's recruiting power, I would not overlook what Brian Johnson brings to the table. He is passionate about hockey and is the president of the Vreds. More importantly he is president of Kingswood Ventures, which owns a high end golf course, athletic facility, restaurant, and multiple commercial buildings. He will also soon start construction on a large aquatic facility and a hotel. If you want to look for a source for above table perks, this guy can deliver.

In regards to the squirrels thing, I went to UNB (95-00) and worked on campus until 2005 and have never heard of it before. I have also asked around and older alumni haven't heard of it either.

 

[wolf13]

Last I checked, the AUS only sends 1 team to the CIS championship (other than the odd years where it is hosting or gets the "extra" slot). So, outside of UNB, a recruit who claims to go to the AUS for the chance to win a championship needs to take remedial math.

In fact, as I have argued in the past, a player desiring to win championships should go to Alberta or Western (UQTR or McGill if they are francophone), as those teams have a much greater likelihood of being in the University Cup than any AUS team other than UNB.

So, perhaps I am wrong, and it is the charm of the AUS coaches that matters the most.

Every team in the University Cup doesn't have the same chance of winning. That's like saying the Wild had the same odds of winning the Stanley Cup as the Blackhawks did at the start of the playoffs.

 

[PeterJMoss]

The AUS has a few advantages over the other leagues that I don't believe have been mentioned:
- Travel distance - the longest trip in the AUS is less than 5 hours on a bus.
- Competitive League - besides St.Thomas all of the teams are competitive. You don't play many games that are complete mismatches.
- Webcasts - every AUS team broadcasts their games online so family can watch.

Now are some of the teams going beyond the allowable rewards to land players... I don't know. If anything the player cap may help UNB since it eliminates a reason not to go there - the fact that you could end up being scratched for games.

 

[Hollywood3]

The AUS has a few advantages over the other leagues that I don't believe have been mentioned:
- Travel distance - the longest trip in the AUS is less than 5 hours on a bus.
- Competitive League - besides St.Thomas all of the teams are competitive. You don't play many games that are complete mismatches.
- Webcasts - every AUS team broadcasts their games online so family can watch.

Now are some of the teams going beyond the allowable rewards to land players... I don't know. If anything the player cap may help UNB since it eliminates a reason not to go there - the fact that you could end up being scratched for games.

The factors cited are a mixed bag. In comparison to Canada West:

- Travel distance - Yes the AUS has short bus trips. But CW teams often get to travel by plane. And they play away only 7 weekends of the year in the regular season. (There are some local derbies where they play home-and-home on the weekend.) Also, they get a weekend away in a major city. The ony downside is two weekends per year in the Hell-hole known as Saskatchewan.

- Competitive League - Not much difference there. Each league has a top 4 with a good shot at making the finals. The STU Pids have had a rough few years, otherwise all the rest have been to the playoffs recently.

- Webcasts - Does every AUS team broadcast all of their games? The CW is expanding coverage every year. Anyhow, lots of players who have played away in major junior like coming back home, at least in Manitoba.

 

[Drummer]

- Webcasts - Does every AUS team broadcast all of their games?

Yes - all of the AUS teams webcast their games. The only school that is a bit hit-and-miss at times is UPEI.

 

[WilcoxHound]

The ony downside is two weekends per year in the Hell-hole known as Saskatchewan.

This is funny coming from a guy from Manitoba, the only difference between the two is that Saskatchewan has more oil unless they've found a way to make oil from mosquitoes.

 

[Rob]

This is funny coming from a guy from Manitoba, the only difference between the two is that Saskatchewan has more oil unless they've found a way to make oil from mosquitoes.

I believe he was referring to the arena the Huskies play in.