PDA

View Full Version : New age restrictions for NCAA hockey



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Stauber1
11-26-2015, 03:42 AM
How about the last national champion?

Prov
'15 - 0
'14 - 0
'13 - 2 -Josh Monk, Coor MacPhee
'12 - 1 - Steven McParland
'11 - 2 - Shane Luke *Redshirt freshman Damian Cross (left the team prior to end of eligibility) was over the age cap his 1st year in '10,

So a total of 4 over 5 years, one of whom left the program

Stauber1
11-26-2015, 04:06 AM
So how does this compare to some of the Big10 teams?

Ohio State
'15 - 3 - Sasha Laroque, Freddy Gerard, Mason Jobst
'14 - 1 - Victor Bjorkung
'13 - 1 - Drew Brevig
'12 - 2 - Tyler Lundey, Craig Dalrymple
'11 - 2 - Nick Oddo, Justin DaSilva

No toss-ups. None have left prior to the end of their eligibility

So 9 over the past 5 years


Wisc
'15 - 2 maybe 3 - Zac Keryluk (July birthday), Tanner Barnes, Patrick Sexton
'14 - 1- Cullen Hurley
'13 - 1 - Aiden Cavallini
'12 - 0
'11 - 1 - Landon Peterson (4-year #2 netminder)

5-6 over 5 years, 1 of which was goaltender


Penn St
'15 - 1 maybe 2 - Derian Hamilton (July birthday), Vince Pedrie
'14 - 0
'13 - 3 - David Thompson, Ricky DeRosa, David Goodwin
'12 - 8-9, their first year so not usefull to count it

So 4-5 over 3 years

Split-N
11-26-2015, 07:41 AM
...The "marquis" schools do wield a lot of power I'd think with their larger fan bases and ability to generate media attention.

Umm....the word is "marquee." (I guess they don't teach homonyms in Wisko.)

Wisko McBadgerton
11-26-2015, 09:12 AM
Wisc
'15 - 2 maybe 3 - Zac Keryluk (July birthday), Tanner Barnes, Patrick Sexton
'14 - 1- Cullen Hurley
'13 - 1 - Aiden Cavallini
'12 - 0
'11 - 1 - Landon Peterson (4-year #2 netminder)

5-6 over 5 years, 1 of which was goaltender




Nice work on these posts. For Wisconsin, Hurley, Keryluk, and Peterson would all fall into the 2 years of juniors after HS category. So UW would be 3 in 5 years. Two this year and one the preceding 4.

Cavallini with 3 career assists would be playing his last year of eligibility this year. Tanner Barnes may never play, hard to say. Eaves expanded his roster quite a bit this year for practice. My understanding though is that a guy like Barnes could still redshirt this year and play 3 more years if his game suddenly took off. He'd be 25 his last year.

Paddy Sexton is more the type of guy that folks are expressing concerns about. He's actually playing good minutes and doing a great job. He might have a future. He would have three years to play or, he might have been picked up as a 20 year old if those were the rules. With the Badgers losing an early departing D plus an incoming one to the CHL late I don't doubt they would have brought Sexton in to play 3 years anyway.

Wisko McBadgerton
11-26-2015, 09:16 AM
Umm....the word is "marquee." (I guess they don't teach homonyms in Wisko.)

It's French. I like to throw a little in for all the Québécois following along.

Shirtless Guy
11-26-2015, 11:03 AM
So obviously this isn't 100% accurate because of the specifics as mentioned on certain players here it is (I changed to 8/1/2015 based on Stauber's thoughts):
Stats on 21 yos

62.5% are American
34.0% are Canadian
2.2% are Swedish
1.3% are other (Denmark, Great Britian, Poland, Russia)

30.4% are Defensemen
55.1% are Forwards
14.4% are Goalies (I didn't exclude 3rd stringers)

29.8% play in AHA
9.0% in B1G
10.3% in ECAC
13.5% in HEA
9.3% in NCHC
28.2% in WCHA

% that were 21 on 8/1/2015 of their frosh year:
31.0% of AHA players
17.8% of B1G players
9.8% of ECAC players
13.0% of HEA players
13.8% of NCHC players
32.0% of WCHA players

purpleinnebraska
11-26-2015, 11:35 AM
It's easy to say, "Hey, he can still play 3 years" but by offering no aid for that 4th year, aren't we ensuring that a lot of these guys won't graduate?

Stauber1
11-26-2015, 11:54 AM
So obviously this isn't 100% accurate because of the specifics as mentioned on certain players here it is (I changed to 8/1/2015 based on Stauber's thoughts):
Stats on 21 yos

62.5% are American
34.0% are Canadian
2.2% are Swedish
1.3% are other (Denmark, Great Britian, Poland, Russia)

30.4% are Defensemen
55.1% are Forwards
14.4% are Goalies (I didn't exclude 3rd stringers)

29.8% play in AHA
9.0% in B1G
10.3% in ECAC
13.5% in HEA
9.3% in NCHC
28.2% in WCHA

% that were 21 on 8/1/2015 of their frosh year:
31.0% of AHA players
17.8% of B1G players
9.8% of ECAC players
13.0% of HEA players
13.8% of NCHC players
32.0% of WCHA players

This is good stuff. So it seems that your % that were 21 on 8/1/2015 is the most relevant here?

It should probably be mentioned that Big10 has some inflated numbers here due to Penn St starting their program just 3 years ago. In reality they are probably a bit closer to the NCHC and HEA.

I figured this proposal would have an effect on Atlantic and WCHA teams the most, but I am a little surprised to see them be about equal (I expected Atlantic Hockey to be the most affected).

That being said, I just don't see how this would really be an effort to hamper the teams the Big10 would be competing with on the national level.

If this is Lucia's or the Big10's scheme to gain an additional leg up, I really have to question how clever they are....gaining a distinct advantage over Atlantic Hockey and middle-bottom half WCHA teams doesn't seem like it would be much of a priority.

SteveO
11-26-2015, 11:56 AM
The bigger issue for me is that they went to the NCAA and did an end run around the rest of college hockey. People who have nothing to do with college hockey are going to be making a decision that will change the landscape of the game. That is a really crappy way to go about bringing this change.

Apparently, the first level protocol for the proposal review process is the Division I Legislative Committee will convene and discuss the legislation. If they approve it, they will submit it to the NCAA Division I Council which meets in April next year. From what I've read, each NCAA DI conference commissioner as well as their respective teams will likely submit their comments and refutations to the D1 LC next week for consideration. Moreover, this legislation announced on CHN was not new to any of the conference commies and teams as they've already been discussing it for over two months. All things considered, this looks to be a lengthy process that will seek conciliation, inclusivity and resolve of the broader college hockey community.

Wisko McBadgerton
11-26-2015, 12:40 PM
If this is Lucia's or the Big10's scheme to gain an additional leg up, I really have to question how clever they are....gaining a distinct advantage over Atlantic Hockey and middle-bottom half WCHA teams doesn't seem like it would be much of a priority.

Well, I for one, have certainly been questioning Lucia's sense for years! But that's another story.

An argument (not the main one) made by the CHL against NCAA is why, Mr. 18 year old superstar, go to the NCAA and get beat up by 25 year olds when you can come play with the very best of your peers on a more equal footing? I believe it was Walt Kyle(?) with the (paraphrased) quote "I don't like playing against your 21 year old freshman. Well, I don't like playing against your 15 NHL Draft picks. and "You can recruit 21 year old Freshman, too."

For schools Like MN, WI, MI, BC, BU, DU, etc. the biggest threat is the CHL to the way they do things. My question lies along the lines of: Would the majority of teams outside these "haves" support legislation that created a NCAA league of 20-26 year olds in which most or all U20 young stars go to the CHL? It seems that would level the playing field even more and increase parity a good deal. It would certainly help the bottom 30-40 programs, so can I assume they'd be all for it?

Stauber1
11-26-2015, 12:57 PM
...I believe it was Walt Kyle(?) with the (paraphrased) quote "I don't like playing against your 21 year old freshman. Well, I don't like playing against your 15 NHL Draft picks. and "You can recruit 21 year old Freshman, too."


This hits on something that I think merits considering. A lot of the criticism surrounding this news is aimed at how college hockey has seen an increase in parity over the past 10 years, and attributing that to the ability of "smaller" schools to recruit older players. I'm not sure that plays all that much of a role. Older players have been recruited in D1 college hockey for a long time. That's not really changed over the past decade.

Something that HAS changed is the number of NHL drafted players in college hockey. Unfortunately I don't have the time today to collect raw numbers to illustrate, but I remember looking at the ECAC last year and seeing that the number of NHL drafted players in that league has definitely increased recently. To me, that is a much bigger influence contributing to the increase in parity and in seeing fresh, first-time national champions.

blackswampboy
11-26-2015, 01:01 PM
My question lies along the lines of: Would the majority of teams outside these "haves" support legislation that created a NCAA league of 20-26 year olds in which most or all U20 young stars go to the CHL? It seems that would level the playing field even more and increase parity a good deal. It would certainly help the bottom 30-40 programs, so can I assume they'd be all for it?

sadly, what 36.7% of college hockey teams support is pretty much irrelevant--since 22 teams have no representation on the NCAA Council.

the good news is that not all of the P5 are marching in lock-step:
“We are not for the legislation, we like it the way it is,” ASU head coach Greg Powers said. “For the same reasons the rest of college hockey likes it. Most importantly, I think you’re limiting opportunity to kids if you pass this and we’re a program that has a lot of kids that fell into that boat.
“Some kids need that extra year to earn the opportunity to play college hockey and I think it’s wrong to take that away from them,” Powers said.

jnacc
11-26-2015, 01:04 PM
Well, I for one, have certainly been questioning Lucia's sense for years! But that's another story.

An argument (not the main one) made by the CHL against NCAA is why, Mr. 18 year old superstar, go to the NCAA and get beat up by 25 year olds when you can come play with the very best of your peers on a more equal footing? I believe it was Walt Kyle(?) with the (paraphrased) quote "I don't like playing against your 21 year old freshman. Well, I don't like playing against your 15 NHL Draft picks. and "You can recruit 21 year old Freshman, too."

For schools Like MN, WI, MI, BC, BU, DU, etc. the biggest threat is the CHL to the way they do things. My question lies along the lines of: Would the majority of teams outside these "haves" support legislation that created a NCAA league of 20-26 year olds in which most or all U20 young stars go to the CHL? It seems that would level the playing field even more and increase parity a good deal. It would certainly help the bottom 30-40 programs, so can I assume they'd be all for it?


How would they draft legislation barring all 18 and 19 year old players from participating in a NCAA sport without any legal ramifications? I suspect it is far easier to institute an age that imposes a cap as opposed to one that bars entry, especially if players are academically eligible to enroll in a college program.

The so called "have nots" represent a clear and comfortable majority of the college hockey community and include some rather prestigious universities who carry a tremendous amount of influence. If they cannot stop this proposal then they need to introduce and ensure passage repealing the ban on CHL players. This would open up a sizable number of talented players to most of college hockey while denying the Big10 the uber talented under age NHL prospects, as they would simply bypass the college route all together if the ban was lifted.

Stauber1
11-26-2015, 01:05 PM
I want to reiterate - I share some criticism of the proposal, and I strongly disapprove of the manner in which it is being introduced. The thing I don't buy is that this is an effort to hinder other schools to better your own school. It just doesn't add up.

To look at it another way, if that's really going to be a strong effect because of this, why would schools like Denver, UND, Duluth or St. Cloud not support it? It's fun and a little cute to poke fun at UND and Denver as being a bunch of "over-aged Canadians" because there was a time in history where that was pretty appropriate. But presently, it just isn't true. UND and Denver would definitely be in the same category as Minnesota or Michigan in this regard.

So are we supposed to believe that Denver and UND disapprove of this because of a sense of obligation to the broad fraternity of D1 men's ice hockey? We all know better than that.

jnacc
11-26-2015, 01:29 PM
Something that HAS changed is the number of NHL drafted players in college hockey. Unfortunately I don't have the time today to collect raw numbers to illustrate, but I remember looking at the ECAC last year and seeing that the number of NHL drafted players in that league has definitely increased recently. To me, that is a much bigger influence contributing to the increase in parity and in seeing fresh, first-time national champions.

In 2005-06 there were 41 drafted players in the ECAC. In 2015-16 there are only 30. There are no drafted players in the entire Atlantic Hockey Conference. The entire WCHA has the same number of drafted players as the Gophers and two less than Michigan. So top end talent has almost nothing to do with the parity found in college hockey today as the so called have nots have less of it than ever and the only equalizer is the age difference...hence why the Big10 is vying to eliminate it.

UMLFan
11-26-2015, 01:32 PM
Let the pity party commence!


“On the flip side, we don’t get the kid for four years. Now who has that advantage?” Lucia said.

Stauber1
11-26-2015, 01:39 PM
In 2005-06 there were 41 drafted players in the ECAC. In 2015-16 there are only 30. There are no drafted players in the entire Atlantic Hockey Conference. The entire WCHA has the same number of drafted players as the Gophers and two less than Michigan. So top end talent has almost nothing to do with the parity found in college hockey today as the so called have nots have less of it than ever and the only equalizer is the age difference...hence why the Big10 is vying to eliminate it.

10 total for the WCHA, 8 of which are at Tech or Mankato.

30 total in ECAC, 12 are at Qunnipiac, Yale and Harvard.

So the top teams in other conferences do have a significant number. The bottom-middle teams, who aren't competing on the national scene, don't have many or any.

blackswampboy
11-26-2015, 02:07 PM
The so called "have nots" represent a clear and comfortable majority of the college hockey community and include some rather prestigious universities who carry a tremendous amount of influence. If they cannot stop this proposal then they need to introduce and ensure passage repealing the ban on CHL players. This would open up a sizable number of talented players to most of college hockey while denying the Big10 the uber talented under age NHL prospects, as they would simply bypass the college route all together if the ban was lifted.

just curious, how do these 'influential' have-nots stop a proposal when they have little/no representation on the NCAA Council?
As I understand it...the P5s get 20 weighted votes when this comes up in April. The MAC gets a total of two votes (shared from BGSU, Western, and Miami). The Ivies get a total of one vote.
The SEC has more power on this vote than the WCHA.
As Luckey Jack Aubrey would say, "Majority ain't in it."

that said, this crap isn't going to pass. but that will be because the P5s decide it's not in their best interests, not because of what the have nots want.

jnacc
11-26-2015, 02:10 PM
10 total for the WCHA, 8 of which are at Tech or Mankato.

30 total in ECAC, 12 are at Qunnipiac, Yale and Harvard.

So the top teams in other conferences do have a significant number. The bottom-middle teams, who aren't competing on the national scene, don't have many or any.


To be fair, Qunnipiac, the top team currently in the ECAC only has 2 drafted players while Yale has a grand total of 3...not a significant amount by any means. The point being that the majority of these teams do not have the talent to match up with teams like Minnesota or Michigan but experience and age whittles away that talent gap.

Wisko McBadgerton
11-26-2015, 02:33 PM
How would they draft legislation barring all 18 and 19 year old players from participating in a NCAA sport without any legal ramifications? I suspect it is far easier to institute an age that imposes a cap as opposed to one that bars entry, especially if players are academically eligible to enroll in a college program.

The so called "have nots" represent a clear and comfortable majority of the college hockey community and include some rather prestigious universities who carry a tremendous amount of influence. If they cannot stop this proposal then they need to introduce and ensure passage repealing the ban on CHL players. This would open up a sizable number of talented players to most of college hockey while denying the Big10 the uber talented under age NHL prospects, as they would simply bypass the college route all together if the ban was lifted.

It's a hypothetical question. But I take it your answer is yes, as you seem to be stating you'd support a policy that denies NCAA hockey talented young NHL prospects altogether and you'd prefer a 20-26 year old league. Kind of an amateur version of the ECHL, because as you say, the biggest stars would bypass NCAA and go to the AHL/NHL after Major Juniors.