Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids
That doesn't surprise me from BU. There seemed to be a concerted effort when MSU played them to hype up the fact that they were so much younger than MSU. It's interesting watching these recruiting issues from a distance (I don't know the ins and outs or know anything about the recruits until they get in our program). I understand the thinking of some of the coaches pushing for these things, but it seems to me that their ire is misguided.
PROBLEM #1: They want to get rid of the gentlemen's agreement. OK, I get it. There are some schools that are abusing it. Namely the biggest of big schools like Michigan and Wisconsin. But they conveniently gloss over the unintended consequences of it and the spirit of the rule. Simple fix....limit the number of "commitments" that a school can accept. Another simple fix....limit the young age during which a school can recruit. These are DIRECT rules at the supposed problems. Not end arounds.
PROBLEM #2: They want to limit the upper end of the age of college players. Again, I get it. The reasoning goes that A) they want athletes to mirror the general student population and B) some coaches are stringing guys along and forcing them to stay in juniors longer before actually offering them a legitimate scholarship. This, again, seems like the biggest abusers of these rules are the larger schools that over recruit and force kids to sit out. By all accounts (and it's hard to find actual figures, but maybe someone here has them), the average age of college kids is rising, so who is the actual outlier? Is it the younger teams? Or is it the older teams? Secondly, again, there is a simple solution to this problem. Limit the number of "commitments" that a school can accept.
In my view, if you over recruit, you are the cause of this problem. Not everyone else. You take kids that are younger. You take kids that leave after 1 or 2 years, of course your average age is going to be younger. That's not everyone else's problem, that's yours. Different teams take different approaches and if your approach is to take the most talented kids that are going to leave in a year or two, your team is ALWAYS going to be younger. It's a simple mathematical problem (I know....college's being required to understand math. UNBELIEVABLE!)
I guess my point is, if the concerns that they air are the real reason they want to eliminate these things or limit ages, then fix the problem directly even if the solution hurts their own program. If they are truly worried about "college hockey" then do the right thing and quit trying to find a way to maybe fix the problems and not caring about the collateral damage. If the concerns are actually something different and they are trying to limit smaller schools opportunities to compete (which is what it seems like from the tactics they are taking), then at least have the integrity to say that.
Originally posted by manurespreader
View Post
PROBLEM #1: They want to get rid of the gentlemen's agreement. OK, I get it. There are some schools that are abusing it. Namely the biggest of big schools like Michigan and Wisconsin. But they conveniently gloss over the unintended consequences of it and the spirit of the rule. Simple fix....limit the number of "commitments" that a school can accept. Another simple fix....limit the young age during which a school can recruit. These are DIRECT rules at the supposed problems. Not end arounds.
PROBLEM #2: They want to limit the upper end of the age of college players. Again, I get it. The reasoning goes that A) they want athletes to mirror the general student population and B) some coaches are stringing guys along and forcing them to stay in juniors longer before actually offering them a legitimate scholarship. This, again, seems like the biggest abusers of these rules are the larger schools that over recruit and force kids to sit out. By all accounts (and it's hard to find actual figures, but maybe someone here has them), the average age of college kids is rising, so who is the actual outlier? Is it the younger teams? Or is it the older teams? Secondly, again, there is a simple solution to this problem. Limit the number of "commitments" that a school can accept.
In my view, if you over recruit, you are the cause of this problem. Not everyone else. You take kids that are younger. You take kids that leave after 1 or 2 years, of course your average age is going to be younger. That's not everyone else's problem, that's yours. Different teams take different approaches and if your approach is to take the most talented kids that are going to leave in a year or two, your team is ALWAYS going to be younger. It's a simple mathematical problem (I know....college's being required to understand math. UNBELIEVABLE!)
I guess my point is, if the concerns that they air are the real reason they want to eliminate these things or limit ages, then fix the problem directly even if the solution hurts their own program. If they are truly worried about "college hockey" then do the right thing and quit trying to find a way to maybe fix the problems and not caring about the collateral damage. If the concerns are actually something different and they are trying to limit smaller schools opportunities to compete (which is what it seems like from the tactics they are taking), then at least have the integrity to say that.
Comment