Harsh Reality of Making it to the Show

[scorekeeper]

Thanks Blue. I only brought it up because I know it wasn't 100% (therefore not a fact). It really didn't have much to do with my point or this topic.

The stat doesn't pertain to hockey, but it does pertain to the value of education. My parents expected me to graduate college and I expect my kids to graduate college, whatever their hockey potential. I'm not saying college is for everybody, but for my family, it is.

If it's important to you then it's important to you. For me, I hope my children reach their expectations - not mine. Regardless, that doesn't make what you said a fact. Quite contrary, it was an inflated stat, which I have found you like to throw around. I only called you out on it. No biggie. I'm happy to get back on topic - the Harsh Reality of Making it to the Show

[The Exiled One]

But that doesn't make what you said a fact. Quite contrary, it was an inflated stat, which I have found you like to throw around. I only called you out on it. No biggie. I'm happy to get back on topic - the Harsh Reality of Making it to the Show

I stated nearly double, it is nearly double, therefore my statement is accurate. You didn't call out anything.

[BlueLineSpecial]

Love these discussions. How exactly does the scholarship thing work with the WHL? I'm interested and I've heard a lot of different things, not all of which can be true...

It's really not very complicated. (cut and paste) For every season a player plays in the WHL, they receive a full year guaranteed Scholarship, including tuition, textbooks and compulsory fees, to a post-secondary institution of their choice. For example, players graduating from a four-year WHL career are eligible to receive four years of scholarship funding. (end cut and paste) Additionally, players can recieve an additional year for signing. This isn't standard, but it's not hard to get. In total, players can recieve a maximum of 5 years tuition/books and compulsary fees.

If they sign an NHL contract before they are 22 then they forfeit the scholarship, which is the same thing that would happen to a D1 player who signed an NHL contract.

Players must begin University within 18 months after their final year in the WHL. 18 months later, (most players would be 22) if they have not yet started University then they forfeit the scholarship. I suppose if you were 22 and hadn't yet began at a D1 school there is likely no scholarship coming either. This gives the player one full season to try pro hockey.

The reality is, a good percentage of WHL players have their NHL contracts in hand before they are 22 and most that don't probably weren't getting D1 offers anyways, so the WHL scholarship is an amazing bonus for those players after a WHL career, which has it's own rewards of course.

WHL detractors often try and find some devil in those details, but it's really pretty simple.

Here's a real life look at a real WHL team on which every single player has now passed the deadline for using a scholarship. The 2007-08 Brandon Wheat Kings were an average team who lost in the first round of the playoffs. The youngest players on that team will turn 23 this year. There were 22 players on their playoff roster that season - here's how they turned out ... so far ...

WENT FROM WHL TO PRO - NO UNIVERSITY

Brayden Schenn C 5 year pro AHL/NHL - current team Philadelphia Flyers (NHL)
Keith Aulie D 5 yr pro AHL/NHL - current team Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL)
Matt Calvert LW 4 yr pro AHL/NHL - current team Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL)
Colby Robak D 4 yr pro AHL/NHL - current team Florida Panthers (NHL)
Scott Glennie C 4 yr pro AHL/NHL - current team Texas Stars (AHL)
Daryl Boyle D 7 yr pro AHL/DEL - current team Augsburg Panthers (DEL)

Obviously these 6 forfeited their scholarships. Not sure what the average salary of these high school graduates is, but I'm pretty sure it's a lot more than the average salary of an average guy with a bachelor degree.

UNIVERSITY GRADS - AND PLAYED SOME PRO

Daniel Bartek C 4 yr Dalhousie University + hockey - GRADUATED
Theran Yeo D 3 yr U of BC / U of Regina - GRADUATED
Chad Erb D 3 yr U of Manitoba - GRADUATED
Andrew Clark LW 4 yr degree and hockey at Acadia U and then 2 yr pro ECHL/AHL - current team Bridgeport Sound Tigers
Matt Lowry C 1 yr AHL then completed his degree at U of Manitoba (2 1/2 years) and now back in the ECHL - current team Evansville Icemen

These 5 have all graduated from University through the WHL scholarship. Lowry even played a year of AHL before finishing his University degree. Also worth noting that neither Lowry or Clark "abandoned the dream" just because they graduated University. Both are still playing professional hockey with a degree in pocket. Lowry in the ECHL and Clark in the AHL.

CURRENTLY IN UNIVERSITY

Tyler Dittmer LW 1 yr pro in German League then 5 yr degree at U of Manitoba - current team U of Manitoba
Cale Jefferies LW 5 yr U. of Guelph - current team U. of Guelph
Del Cowan LW 4 yr U of Manitoba - current team U of Manitoba
Joe Caligiuri G 3 yr U of Manitoba - current team U of Manitoba
Sanfred King RW 3 yr U of Regina - current team U of Regina
Andrew Hayes G 3 yr U of Regina - current team U of Regina
Nathan Green C 2 yr U of Manitoba - current team U of Manitoba
Brodie Melnychuk D 2 yr U of Manitoba - current team U of Manitoba

These 8, bring to 13 the number of players on that 22 man roster that attended University through the WHL scholarship. Three of these guys graduate this year while the other 5 continue on. All 13 players played college hockey while getting their degrees.

??????

Jay Fehr C 1 yr pro in Germany - 1 yr at Acadia U
Matthew McCue D 2 yr pro ECHL/CHL/AHL since 2011 ???
Jordan Hale LW ??? life after the WHL ???

Jay Fehr was a good junior hockey player. Cousin of Eric Fehr of the Washington Capitals. He attended 1 year of University and decided to try his hand in Europe. He returned home to play senior hockey for his hometown, where he still plays. McCue was a fighter who played 2 years of minor pro and packed er in. Jordan Hale was a serviceable scrapper for 3 years in junior but didn't develop enough to get a roster spot as an older player and was sent back to junior A. He was eligible for 3 years of university but never cashed it in.

------------------------

Thanks for the detail. This sounds like a pretty great deal. Can someone on the other side of the argument explain why this supposedly isn't??

[scorekeeper]

But that doesn't make what you said a fact. Quite contrary, it was an inflated stat, which I have found you like to throw around. I only called you out on it. No biggie. I'm happy to get back on topic - the Harsh Reality of Making it to the Show

I stated nearly double, it is nearly double, therefore my statement is accurate. You didn't call out anything.

It's 69%. That's hardly "nearly double", which would be 100%, but it is consistent with the accuracy rate of your normal posts.

[The Exiled One]

It's 69%. That's hardly "nearly double"

Judges?

[scorekeeper]

Thanks for the detail. This sounds like a pretty great deal. Can someone on the other side of the argument explain why this supposedly isn't??

They publish every year the kids who are in school through the WHl scholarship program - and they should. It's something to be very proud of. Here's this years students;
http://www.whl.ca/article/whl-awards-30 ... ear/151593

[scorekeeper]

Thanks for the detail. This sounds like a pretty great deal. Can someone on the other side of the argument explain why this supposedly isn't??

Additionally, over 140 current WHL players are receiving financial assistance to enroll in post secondary classes while playing in the WHL.

There is only 500 players in the WHL, but we have 308 currently on scholarship in University and another 140 taking University classes while they are still playing in the WHL.

If the high school players don't maintain good grades, they don't play either. Contrary to what gets "spread" around in Minnesota, education is a big deal in the WHL.

[Gopher Blog]

It's 69%. That's hardly "nearly double", which would be 100%, but it is consistent with the accuracy rate of your normal posts.

Focusing on the words used to describe the stat is simply trying to gloss over the reality that it is still a pretty significant difference in the average earning power of a person with a college degree vs. a person without one over their lifetimes. 70% is a pretty significant difference over a lifetime and it does show the value of getting a degree.

Of course, there are going to be some degrees less valuable than others so we can't lump everything together. But all it takes is one glance at job opportunities these days (excluding basic, lower paying jobs like waiter, etc) and you'll see most require a college degree.

[Gopher Blog]

Thanks for the detail. This sounds like a pretty great deal. Can someone on the other side of the argument explain why this supposedly isn't??

They publish every year the kids who are in school through the WHl scholarship program - and they should. It's something to be very proud of. Here's this years students;
http://www.whl.ca/article/whl-awards-30 ... ear/151593

The ironic thing about the numbers is how it debunks the idealistic attitude connecting the WHL to the pros. A lot names on that list that will never even sniff pro money. Yet we are told how great the WHL is at getting players to the next level. Seems to me quite a significant number get nowhere near that hyped up talk.

In the end, it is a pointless discussion to continue with because you have always been incapable of acknowledging the downsides to their package. You'll mention it but twist it in a manner that makes it seem like there are no issues in such stipulations. Yet there have been numerous articles written in Canada about the pros AND the cons of the education package stipulations. They aren't hard for people to find in the internet age.

As I said... nobody will deny it works for some guys. Just don't try to gloss over the fine print and act like it works for everybody really well. Buyer beware.

Like I said, I'm glad MN kids mostly avoid it and play NCAA hockey.

[puckbreath]

It's 69%. That's hardly "nearly double", which would be 100%, but it is consistent with the accuracy rate of your normal posts.

Focusing on the words used to describe the stat is simply trying to gloss over the reality that it is still a pretty significant difference in the average earning power of a person with a college degree vs. a person without one over their lifetimes. 70% is a pretty significant difference over a lifetime and it does show the value of getting a degree.

Of course, there are going to be some degrees less valuable than others so we can't lump everything together. But all it takes is one glance at job opportunities these days (excluding basic, lower paying jobs like waiter, etc) and you'll see most require a college degree.

There are actually very good paying/benefits jobs without a college degree available.

I.e., plumber, electrician, welder, various railroads, among others. Obviously, the trades usually require a cert of some kind, but:

- those are considerably cheaper to get than a college degree, and since the person is usually working in the trade at the time, debt involved can be non-existent. Especially in those cases where an employer or union is helping with cost.
College debt is a HUGE elephant in this countries economic room, and I predict it alone will be the next cause of an economic crisis in this country.
Kids are so in debt, that that is all they're spending their money on, instead of things like homes, cars, etc. that help drive an economy.
I've heard (npr) it's over a trillion $ nationwide.

I'm not totally against a degree by any means, but over time, it has turned into a self-sustaining industry, with vast marketing means and political clout at it's disposal.
Just look at all the crap in the mail kids get about schools these days, over and over.
When I was a kid, none of this occurred.

- they are good careers, that can't be outsourced, among other things that happen to some jobs.

The problem is, most kids these days look down on such jobs, and have no intention of having to get their hands dirty.
Not to say they're for everyone of course.

But I don't agree with today's mindset, heavily encouraged by the academic industry for obvious financial benefits to themselves, that every kid must get a college degree.

The *only* thing a degree guarantees is a huge debt, for the vast majority of kids, that will take decades to pay off.....if ever...........decades in the heart of that person's life, when they should be enjoying life, not considering it a ball/chain.
And of course, this doesn't take into account the economic consequences/affects that also happen to the parents.

Apologize if this adds a thread drift, and gopher blog, this is just a general reply to various comments in this thread, not necessarily just directed at you.

[hawkenjonny]

Comment on the statement about 'pro' hockey players or semi-pro? making more money that those with a college education. If you are thinking about an NHL high draft pick going right to the big show they probably would. For a few years, or less as statistics clearly show. Your overall earning potential with a college degree or skill set from a votech etc FAR outweigh what the vast majority of so called pro hockey players make. Unless of course you are truly the elite and then you would not be worried about any of this. Buyer beware is right. Some of scorekeepers numbers may be real, but they are not the true picture. And yes, I do know. I was one of those kids that played a bit, couldn't make the next cut, packed it in and went to school and finished. Most of my friends in the same boat did not. Just saying.

[Winter is Coming]

Comment on the statement about 'pro' hockey players or semi-pro? making more money that those with a college education. If you are thinking about an NHL high draft pick going right to the big show they probably would. For a few years, or less as statistics clearly show. Your overall earning potential with a college degree or skill set from a votech etc FAR outweigh what the vast majority of so called pro hockey players make. Unless of course you are truly the elite and then you would not be worried about any of this. Buyer beware is right. Some of scorekeepers numbers may be real, but they are not the true picture. And yes, I do know. I was one of those kids that played a bit, couldn't make the next cut, packed it in and went to school and finished. Most of my friends in the same boat did not. Just saying.

I think that the true picture painted by scorekeeper is that if you want to go on to college you can find away and that you will get help if you want it from them. I have to admit that I kept hearing about what a bad deal the WHL is andhow it is a total dead end and etc and now I am not so sure. I get that college is important to some people and think that if it works for you and your kid that is good. I do see lots of kids though who are not college material for what ever reason and think that sending them to college is a waste of time and money. You took a shot at the next level of hockey and it did not work out so you packed it in and finished school. You said that several of your buddies did not go to college. I bet they did something though. Welding? Fire Fighter? Plumber? A trade school or something like that. Hockey probably did not influance those kids either way unless it was to give them a spot to play and reward for their hard work. Those kids did not fail they took another route and probably would not have gone to college even if they had not played hockey of if they were forced to stay in MN and go the USHL/Gopher route.

I think that for people to come on here and to proclaim that no kid of mine will ever go WHL is pretty short sighted.

[BlueLineSpecial]

Comment on the statement about 'pro' hockey players or semi-pro? making more money that those with a college education. If you are thinking about an NHL high draft pick going right to the big show they probably would. For a few years, or less as statistics clearly show. Your overall earning potential with a college degree or skill set from a votech etc FAR outweigh what the vast majority of so called pro hockey players make. Unless of course you are truly the elite and then you would not be worried about any of this. Buyer beware is right. Some of scorekeepers numbers may be real, but they are not the true picture. And yes, I do know. I was one of those kids that played a bit, couldn't make the next cut, packed it in and went to school and finished. Most of my friends in the same boat did not. Just saying.

I think that the true picture painted by scorekeeper is that if you want to go on to college you can find away and that you will get help if you want it from them. I have to admit that I kept hearing about what a bad deal the WHL is andhow it is a total dead end and etc and now I am not so sure. I get that college is important to some people and think that if it works for you and your kid that is good. I do see lots of kids though who are not college material for what ever reason and think that sending them to college is a waste of time and money. You took a shot at the next level of hockey and it did not work out so you packed it in and finished school. You said that several of your buddies did not go to college. I bet they did something though. Welding? Fire Fighter? Plumber? A trade school or something like that. Hockey probably did not influance those kids either way unless it was to give them a spot to play and reward for their hard work. Those kids did not fail they took another route and probably would not have gone to college even if they had not played hockey of if they were forced to stay in MN and go the USHL/Gopher route.

I think that for people to come on here and to proclaim that no kid of mine will ever go WHL is pretty short sighted.

Yeah, I've heard the same thing that it's full of holes, etc. All anyone ever says is "go online and look it up, it's all there". Well I did and I still don't see any of these purported negatives. I guess the one thing that could be considered is that the education package is voided after 18 months if not used, and that it's void if you sign a contract. With regard to the first part, I don't see any issue with that. Are most educational reimbursements or scholarships contingent on using them in a certain period of time?

It also looks like the WHL and the CHL in general is looking at tweaking some of these restrictions. For example, matching what the OHL recently modified, which states that all AHL contracts (including tryout contracts) don't necessarily void the educational package.

To be honest, it looks like they value the future of these kids and want/encourage then to further their education. They also seem to understand demands and are willing to be malleable with the package if that's the desire of the masses.

Edit: link with some of this recent info

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/touch/sto ... id=9556461

[The Exiled One]

I do see lots of kids though who are not college material for what ever reason and think that sending them to college is a waste of time and money.

Correct, these kids should play WHL if they can.

I think that for people to come on here and to proclaim that no kid of mine will ever go WHL is pretty short sighted.

Even as a college hockey fan, if the WHL wanted to offer my kid one of those under the table six figure deals, I think I'd probably advise him to take it. I'd still expect him go to college, plus he'd come out net ahead in income.

[The Exiled One]

Yeah, I've heard the same thing that it's full of holes, etc. All anyone ever says is "go online and look it up, it's all there". Well I did and I still don't see any of these purported negatives. I guess the one thing that could be considered is that the education package is voided after 18 months if not used, and that it's void if you sign a contract. With regard to the first part, I don't see any issue with that. Are most educational reimbursements or scholarships contingent on using them in a certain period of time?

It also looks like the WHL and the CHL in general is looking at tweaking some of these restrictions. For example, matching what the OHL recently modified, which states that all AHL contracts (including tryout contracts) don't necessarily void the educational package.

To be honest, it looks like they value the future of these kids and want/encourage then to further their education. They also seem to understand demands and are willing to be malleable with the package if that's the desire of the masses.

Edit: link with some of this recent info

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/touch/sto ... id=9556461

It is what it is.

This is what I see as a college hockey fan. Here are the players that left SCSU after this past season...

Ben Hanowski - Graduated/NHL
Drew LeBlanc - Graduated/AHL
Nick Jensen - AHL
Taylor Johnson - Graduated

...nothing wrong with those results either.

[BlueLineSpecial]

Yeah, I've heard the same thing that it's full of holes, etc. All anyone ever says is "go online and look it up, it's all there". Well I did and I still don't see any of these purported negatives. I guess the one thing that could be considered is that the education package is voided after 18 months if not used, and that it's void if you sign a contract. With regard to the first part, I don't see any issue with that. Are most educational reimbursements or scholarships contingent on using them in a certain period of time?

It also looks like the WHL and the CHL in general is looking at tweaking some of these restrictions. For example, matching what the OHL recently modified, which states that all AHL contracts (including tryout contracts) don't necessarily void the educational package.

To be honest, it looks like they value the future of these kids and want/encourage then to further their education. They also seem to understand demands and are willing to be malleable with the package if that's the desire of the masses.

Edit: link with some of this recent info

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/touch/sto ... id=9556461

It is what it is.

This is what I see as a college hockey fan. Here are the players that left SCSU after this past season...

Ben Hanowski - Graduated/NHL
Drew LeBlanc - Graduated/AHL
Nick Jensen - AHL
Taylor Johnson - Graduated

...nothing wrong with those results either.

Absolutely. I have no pup in the fight, just interesting to see both sides and get a grasp of it all

This is probably one of the better articles on the subject I've seen. Personally I'm a huge fan of college hockey and would lean that direction. But there has been a lot of poo pooing of major juniors and I'm not certain after a little research that it's warranted.

http://m.collegehockeyinc.com/node/493

[Winter is Coming]

You are completely right. Either way you go to better yourself and your future is good. I tell all of my kids that you have to do something. No post high school education of some sort is not an option. I just hate to see things frozen out of the option list based on the fact that you either don't understand the system (most people on here who are bashing the WHL) or because you are so locked into the whole Association/High School/USHL/Fight Sioux model of hockey success that you stop thinking. Anything that ends up with a successful kid who is making a living and supporting himself is a happy ending.

[The Exiled One]

You are completely right. Either way you go to better yourself and your future is good. I tell all of my kids that you have to do something. No post high school education of some sort is not an option. I just hate to see things frozen out of the option list based on the fact that you either don't understand the system (most people on here who are bashing the WHL) or because you are so locked into the whole Association/High School/USHL/Fight Sioux model of hockey success that you stop thinking. Anything that ends up with a successful kid who is making a living and supporting himself is a happy ending.

I've never attempted to bash the WHL, just to refute the idea that it's ALWAYS a better option for ANY kid serious about hockey. Certain posters refuse to give an ounce of credit to the NCAA route. It's frustrating, and frankly, it's the primary cause for these debates. Go back to the beginning of this thread and read ALL the posts. I always give the WHL their due credit. Show me ONE place where scorekeeper gives the NCAA route ANY credit.

[The Exiled One]

Absolutely. I have no pup in the fight, just interesting to see both sides and get a grasp of it all

...and that's my beef with scorekeeper. He'd tell you that all four of these guys chose the wrong route.

[SouthernMinnFan]

The reason why the NHL likes CHL so much (I understand that NCAA sends plenty of kids pro too) is because when a player is done playing in CHL he is 21. When a NCAA player is done playing (presuming he played a few years of juniors, most do) is 24ish. Now in order to develope them at the same rate in their pro system, The CHL player can have two years pro under his belt by 23, still young with room to grow and develope physically. The NCAA player with two years pro under his belt is now 26, 27. Physically he is in his prime and if the transition into the NHL isn't quick he is pushing 30 in the minors. This example works for players with roughly the same skills. But it's the same mentallity for high school teams. If you have a sophomore and a senior with roughly the same skills, why wouldn't you take the sophomore and develope him for 3 years.

[The Exiled One]

The reason why the NHL likes CHL so much (I understand that NCAA sends plenty of kids pro too) is because when a player is done playing in CHL he is 21. When a NCAA player is done playing (presuming he played a few years of juniors, most do) is 24ish. Now in order to develope them at the same rate in their pro system, The CHL player can have two years pro under his belt by 23, still young with room to grow and develope physically. The NCAA player with two years pro under his belt is now 26, 27. Physically he is in his prime and if the transition into the NHL isn't quick he is pushing 30 in the minors. This example works for players with roughly the same skills. But it's the same mentallity for high school teams. If you have a sophomore and a senior with roughly the same skills, why wouldn't you take the sophomore and develope him for 3 years.

That's a valid view from the NHL side. Of course, that doesn't mean it's the best for every kid.

From McDonald's point of view, it be better if fewer people went to college so that their prospect pool was larger and they could hire better, cheaper employees. Getting a degree doesn't kick you out of the prospect pool at McDonald's, it just means you'll have options if that sweet McDonald's gig doesn't pan out.

I'm not saying you're not correct, I'm just saying it's not a strong selling point for a kid deciding his future. What's good from the employer side is not always good from the employee side.

EDIT: Oh, and as a counterpoint, NHL clubs have to PAY to develop players in the AHL. The NCAA will develop their prospects for free. Your language seems to indicate that the AHL is the only place to prepare for the NHL, which I don't believe to be entirely true.

[SouthernMinnFan]

No the AHL is not the only place to develope talent but the jump from NCAA to AHL is big and the jump from AHL to the NHL is big. So getting a kid to make the jump at each level possibly 4 years younger clearly they are going to have a better chance to stick. Otherwise you can take the approach like many high end NCAA players do now anyways and leave early to persue their pro career. They do not end up with degrees but they know that entering the pro system at 22, 23 gives them a much better chance at playing than 24, 25.

[The Exiled One]

No the AHL is not the only place to develope talent but the jump from NCAA to AHL is big.

This is debatable. I personally don't think it's that big.

Otherwise you can take the approach like many high end NCAA players do now anyways and leave early to persue their pro career. They do not end up with degrees but they know that entering the pro system at 22, 23 gives them a much better chance at playing than 24, 25.

Won't argue, this does happen.

[O-townClown]

Thanks for the detail. This sounds like a pretty great deal. Can someone on the other side of the argument explain why this supposedly isn't??

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/jrhock ... 36315.html

This guy offers some perspective.

[394 West]

A college degree is not a way to say that you are a success or not.

Worth noting that a bachelor degree isn't what it used to be..

College grads make nearly twice as much as non-college grads. This is just a fact backed up by a source, not an opinion about pursing a hockey career. I just thought it might add to the conversation.

LOL. I like your "facts". Firstly because they are usually not facts at all, and secondly, because they are rarely relevant to the conversation.

With regards to the first,

"College graduates earn, on average, about $20,000 a year more than those who finished their educations at high school. Add that up over a 40-year working life and the total differential is about $800,000 ... But since much of that bonus is earned many years from now, subtracting out the impact of inflation means that $800,000 in future dollars is worth only about $450,000 in today's dollars."

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-questio ... z2wRscsjIO

And as it relates this conversation, we are comparing the average college degree , NOT against the average high school degree, but in fact, against the average professional hockey salary. Not to mention, many of these kids who play Major Junior in hockey markets have no problem returning to those markets and securing pretty well paying cushy jobs.

So comparing the salary of someone with a bachelor degree to the average salary of a person with a high school degree is not the same as comparing with an average of professional hockey players and/or former Major Junior player.

Finally, Major Junior players who opt to go pro instead of college are excersicing a choice which can be made when the athlete is very mature at age 20 or 21, and has a good grasp of his options and a good idea (at least better idea) of how he wants his life to unfold, as opposed to asking a 16-18 year old to close all other doors and put all his eggs in one schools basket. I suppose if your goal is to play for School X and they offer you a scholarship then that in itself is a goal achieved.

Certainly nothing wrong with committing to a school. But for guys who's goal is a professional hockey career, there are better avenues which can be pursued all the while keeping the school option open - and actually, fully paid for.

Your points ignore the fact that the Major Junior guys who arent getting an education after junior isn't because they are suddenly pumping gas. It's because they are playing professional hockey. Your points would have been valid 20 years ago, but in this day and age with the WHL scholarship being the most succesful of it's kind and been around now a long time, for the most part, kids who don't pro are getting a college degree.

Allow me to lift up that rock you've been living under. It's 2014, LOL ;0)

Firstly?