Question on NCAA Professional Rule

[A.L.]

I have a question on here for all of you who know something about NCAA rules. Every year for at least 4 years there has been a "Battle of the Borders" with a Canadian team and a USA team. US players, who play on senior teams with younger players in both the US and Canada get paid $1,000 to fly to Calagary and play 4 games against the Canadian team Oval. They get $1,000 in cash plus all of their expenses paid for.

All of these senior teams in the US and Canada that these players play on have younger players who played with them and are now still playing on NCAA teams. According to what I can find, the "NCAA Professionalism Rule" would render then these entire teams contaminated (similar to the Gavrilova situation at UMD where she played on a team where other players had been paid). Wouldn't that make the players who have played on these senior teams -- players like Agosta, Wakefield, Mallory Deluce and Vailloncourt, to name a few who have played with these paid players on other league teams, in the same boat as the UMD player is?

I am honestly just trying to figure out why these two matter would be any different. Unbiased imput would be greatly appreciated it. I am neither a UMD fan or WCHA fan, to be honest, but it seems to me something isn't adding up here.

[gotice]

I have a question on here for all of you who know something about NCAA rules. Every year for at least 4 years there has been a "Battle of the Borders" with a Canadian team and a USA team. US players, who play on senior teams with younger players in both the US and Canada get paid $1,000 to fly to Calagary and play 4 games against the Canadian team Oval. They get $1,000 in cash plus all of their expenses paid for.

All of these senior teams in the US and Canada that these players play on have younger players who played with them and are now still playing on NCAA teams. According to what I can find, the "NCAA Professionalism Rule" would render then these entire teams contaminated (similar to the Gavrilova situation at UMD where she played on a team where other players had been paid). Wouldn't that make the players who have played on these senior teams -- players like Agosta, Wakefield, Mallory Deluce and Vailloncourt, to name a few who have played with these paid players on other league teams, in the same boat as the UMD player is?

I am honestly just trying to figure out why these two matter would be any different. Unbiased imput would be greatly appreciated it. I am neither a UMD fan or WCHA fan, to be honest, but it seems to me something isn't adding up here.

That is a good question. The male counterparts that play for Major Junior teams, even if they do not get paid, are considered pro and are ineligible to play NCAA because other players on the team are paid. Why is it different for females?

[rinkrat890890]

I have a question on here for all of you who know something about NCAA rules. Every year for at least 4 years there has been a "Battle of the Borders" with a Canadian team and a USA team. US players, who play on senior teams with younger players in both the US and Canada get paid $1,000 to fly to Calagary and play 4 games against the Canadian team Oval. They get $1,000 in cash plus all of their expenses paid for.

All of these senior teams in the US and Canada that these players play on have younger players who played with them and are now still playing on NCAA teams. According to what I can find, the "NCAA Professionalism Rule" would render then these entire teams contaminated (similar to the Gavrilova situation at UMD where she played on a team where other players had been paid). Wouldn't that make the players who have played on these senior teams -- players like Agosta, Wakefield, Mallory Deluce and Vailloncourt, to name a few who have played with these paid players on other league teams, in the same boat as the UMD player is?

I am honestly just trying to figure out why these two matter would be any different. Unbiased imput would be greatly appreciated it. I am neither a UMD fan or WCHA fan, to be honest, but it seems to me something isn't adding up here.

I thought I heard that the American players got paid well when they won the gold medal in the Worlds last year and whenever they win a medal. Not sure if it's true or how much they get. Does anyone know? I think it came up during the last Olympics also when there were college players playing. I'm curious now that it's been mentioned.

[vellnueve]

NCAA has some exceptions in there that allows for gifts of a certain value when playing in certain types of games. For example, when traveling to bowl games for football, each player can get several hundred dollars worth of gifts and spending money. I imagine that there are some loopholes written in allowing the hockey teams to receive some amounts as well.

I think the the issue with Gavrilova was that the team was drawing regular salaries.

[WHKY blogger]

I thought I heard that the American players got paid well when they won the gold medal in the Worlds last year and whenever they win a medal. Not sure if it's true or how much they get. Does anyone know? I think it came up during the last Olympics also when there were college players playing. I'm curious now that it's been mentioned.

If I remember correctly the "Stipends" that the team USA players receive are to offset expenses that are not covered by USA Hockey.

There are provisions in the rule book and forms that the players fill out that are submitted to the NCAA via the compliance departments at each school to ensure that anything they receive is on the up and up.

I remember being at a UW Practice a few years back and watching a couple of girls preparing for Worlds camp fill out a slue of papers to account for the variations between playing in the NCAA and the IIHF Ranks.

[DIGDOGS]

I know US national team players receive money even when they do not make teams, but not sure if they do before they graduate. I think the thread posted is bringing up a good point, however, because those players were not playing for their national teams and playing with players that were making more than a stipend. That's sounds just like Iya's case, where there were some players on the team paid under the table, but not all the players knew it, which is what happened to Iya. She didn't know some of her teammates were paid. Most 14 year olds would be clueless anyway.

I wonder why then the border battle situation is then different in terms of playing on a pro team? Or maybe the NCAA is not up to speed, since it has proven it doesn't care much about women's hockey to begin with. :(