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

jnacc
11-26-2015, 02:42 PM
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.

Truth is McBadgerton, I suppose I would support it now because very few elite teams play my college team at home. Back in the old CCHA, I could look forward to teams like Michigan and Notre Dame coming in every year, affording me the opportunity to see some high end future talent. The current WCHA, while having some fine teams, simply does not elicit the kind of excitement that the big name schools with all their star players did. The only way that my school can remotely compete with those schools today is by having a much older and mature roster. Take that advantage away, then yes we should look at opening up the CHL player pool while denying you the ability to land and keep the young high end talent.

Needless to say I am not a fan of the Big10 nor what they have done to the college hockey landscape.

Patman
11-26-2015, 02:50 PM
Military service does get an exception; there was a news article a few months ago about a guy in his 30s or early 40s that made it onto a football team as a WR recently after having served. A few other things will get you an exception, like the aforementioned Chris Weinke. He was 27 and still playing college football after a failed attempt at an MLB career.

they changed the rules a few (10?) years back where they start running the clock at some point... Weinke wouldn't come under a waiver, they were just the rules of the day...I want to think it was getting tired of seeing these D-III schools taking on guys in their 30s... not sure

Patman
11-26-2015, 03:02 PM
I read that yesterday and my response was that his view is probably not true. He has the talent, and opportunities are quite often presented to talent. And he did leave Lowell after 2 years. But more importantly, it's completely irrelevant. I don't care if Folin's story, as great as it is, doesn't happen. NCAA policy shouldn't be driven by whether or not one, or an extra handful of guys, make it to the NHL.

Except when it does, naturally. Lets not act like these things are inevitable. Further is this about competition, the players lives, or spite? In the end is this about the school or the man or neither. one could agrue that we're artificially holding back college attendance for the sake of player ripeness... but if so, then why do we do things like "redshirting" in other sports?

edit: I'm sort of OK with the proposal... I just don't like the sneaky stuff they're pulling. They have no right to be driving the bus.

Stauber1
11-26-2015, 03:17 PM
...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.

Agreed, these "small" schools who compete with the Minnesotas, Michigans, UNDs, BCs are older on average. But it seems pretty evident to me that the age difference is not primarily attributed to 21-year-old freshman, rather to 19 and 20 year olds who stick around for 4 years. That wouldn't change.

Split-N
11-26-2015, 03:33 PM
[QUOTE=Patman;6231318...They have no right to be driving the bus.[/QUOTE]

They believe they're entitled to drive the bus!

Dutchman
11-26-2015, 03:48 PM
When the competition threatens your hegemony .... change the rules in your favor.

SteveO
11-26-2015, 04:39 PM
Agreed, these "small" schools who compete with the Minnesotas, Michigans, UNDs, BCs are older on average. But it seems pretty evident to me that the age difference is not primarily attributed to 21-year-old freshman, rather to 19 and 20 year olds who stick around for 4 years. That wouldn't change.

I agree with you Stauber1. I would add that there has been some discussion among coaches that compliance to the proposed legislation would contribute to rushing the development of players in juniors.


Josh Fenton, NCHC commissioner said a discussion point at all levels of hockey is players rushing their development, and this could increase that. “People would argue that we’re forcing kids to make decisions too early in their lives,” Fenton said. “College hockey is a part of that.”

I rather tend to agree with Don Lucia and his career experience on this point that players in juniors are often told by their D1 coaching staff to stay three years for various reasons other than concerns for their development. When a player signs a LOI, he is promised a roster spot and intends to land at his D1 destination for at least the required one season asap. Typically players do not expect to play three years of juniors after signing an LOI.

However, what seems all too common today is that next step to D1 is entirely dependent on early departures, mutable recruiting strategies of the D1 coaching staff, current D1 player development or the current class structure of the roster. What has been statistically apparent every college hockey season is the developmental aspects of juniors as they directly apply to the D1 level and style of college hockey are not "highly" correlated. Every season players who emerge from juniors into D1 typically do NOT experience the same level of success, and generally speaking need at least a season to adjust to the pace, physicality and quality of NCAA D1 college hockey. In my view, a proposal that would require a D1 coaching staff to calibrate their rosters to bring players in after 2 years of juniors is contributing to their development, not impeding it. In my view, this may essentially translate into increasing the developmental capital of smaller schools.

SteveO
11-26-2015, 06:11 PM
They believe they're entitled to drive the bus!


When the competition threatens your hegemony .... change the rules in your favor.

Sorry, but I'm not on board here with the conspiracy allegations waged against Big Ten coaches regarding this proposed legislation. I have too much respect for the integrity of coaches like Red Berenson, Don Lucia, Tom Anastos, Guy Gadowsky, etc. Red and Don Lucia are among the all time winningest active coaches in college hockey history. In my opinion, these are men of integrity, and certainly NOT a collective coup of college hockey coaches gone rouge to gain leverage over other schools as some have insinuated. According to NCAA regulations, conferences that are D1 in all sports are afforded the judicial right to draft proposals directly to the NCAA for consideration and this happens all the time in NCAA football and basketball as well. Any hegemony assumed belongs to the NCAA and their right to conferral of patriarchal dividends to member schools based upon compliance with policy. This proposal along with others were directly submitted for discussion and feedback according to that privilege. Not all college hockey officials find this threatening:


The Big Ten yields the most power with the ability to directly submit rules proposals to the NCAA, because it is a full Division I league across the board. Although Josh Fenton, NCHC Commissioner opposes this piece of legislation, he said he thinks it’s a good thing. “I think it’s great that we have a conference with a seat at the table directly,” Fenton said. “It creates some leverage for our sport in particular. I think everyone is looking at it saying, ‘How can we use that power to strengthen the sport overall?’

The American Hockey Coaches Association (AHCA) annual coaches meeting is April every year in Naples, Florida. This proposal was hammered out among Big Ten coaches this summer. I don't know how feasible it would have been to poll all 60 D1 NCAA schools and have a spirited debate during that time. That would have been one heck of a conference call! The Big Ten coaches were well aware that the ratification procedures would include rebuttals submitted by dissenting conferences and schools which would inevitably be taken into consideration by the D1 Legislative Committee and subsequently the NCAA Council in April 2016.

Does the proposal have merit? Given that the average age of college hockey players has increased over the years and is greater than any other college sport, perhaps it's a good thing to begin to discuss an age ceiling. I suspect a prudent deliberation and comprehensive consideration of the impact of such legislation upon the aggregate college hockey community will ensue and an equitable solution will prevail.

blackswampboy
11-26-2015, 06:58 PM
I don't know how feasible it would have been to poll all 60 D1 NCAA schools and have a spirited debate during that time.

A poll of all 60 D1 coaches was apparently entirely feasible. Credit to the coaches for their prudent, comprehensive, and equitable 49-11 rejection of the proposal. ;-)


According to NCAA regulations, conferences that are D1 in all sports are afforded the judicial right to draft proposals directly to the NCAA for consideration and this happens all the time in NCAA football and basketball as well. Any hegemony assumed belongs to the NCAA and their right to conferral of patriarchal dividends to member schools based upon compliance with policy. This proposal along with others were directly submitted for discussion and feedback according to that privilege.

NCAA policy and the 'patriarchal dividends' (oops, pardon. a little vomit came up with that phrase) that the P5 have been granted over college hockey are a travesty.
Meanwhile, 21 D1 hockey schools have no representation on the council, and must somehow trust that P5 conferences with absolutely no interest in hockey (i.e., the SEC and Big 12) will use their weighted four votes (each) to do right by the sport. Inclusivity? Absurd.

SteveO
11-26-2015, 07:13 PM
A poll of all 60 D1 coaches was apparently entirely feasible. Credit to the coaches for their prudent, comprehensive, and equitable 49-11 rejection of the proposal. ;-)

That's a "straw" poll and not a substitute for discussion. That's not dialogue and debate.


NCAA policy and the 'patriarchal dividends' (oops, pardon. a little vomit came up with that phrase) that the P5 have been granted over college hockey are a travesty. Meanwhile, 21 D1 hockey schools have no representation on the council, and must somehow trust that P5 conferences with absolutely no interest in hockey (i.e., the SEC and Big 12) will use their weighted four votes (each) to do right by the sport. Inclusivity? Absurd.

I'd suggest you research the constituencies of the D1 Legislative Committee and the NCAA Council before passing judgement. You appear rather naive regarding the process. It's already been documented and confirmed that conferences and teams will have an opportunity to voice their opinions. That sounds a lot like inclusivity to me.

Patronick
11-26-2015, 07:54 PM
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.

Not really. The B10 knows this rule change is not supported by a majority of the college hockey coaches. They used this run around because they can. If they really wanted to include all of the programs, this would have been discussed at the coaches meetings and would have been put forth if and only if a majority of the coaches wanted it. That's obviously not the case.

Patronick
11-26-2015, 08:20 PM
That's a "straw" poll and not a substitute for discussion. That's not dialogue and debate.



I'd suggest you research the constituencies of the D1 Legislative Committee and the NCAA Council before passing judgement. You appear rather naive regarding the process. It's already been documented and confirmed that conferences and teams will have an opportunity to voice their opinions. That sounds a lot like inclusivity to me.


http://blog.collegehockeynews.com/2015/11/breaking-down-the-power-structure-of-the-ncaa-council-vote/#more-5538

I suggest you read the linked article before spouting off that this process will be inclusive. Hint: it won't.

Almington
11-26-2015, 09:19 PM
without complete analysis of the players and their specific circumstances and complete knowledge of redshirt players here is what I have based on a cutoff date of 9/1 each year the WCHA has the following breakdown:

18 yo (12, 4.4%)
19 yo (46, 16.7%)
20 yo (113, 41.1%)
21 yo+ (104, 37.8%)

How many of those players played three years of junior hockey post high school? That's the real cutoff, not the age of 21.

SteveO
11-26-2015, 09:25 PM
http://blog.collegehockeynews.com/2015/11/breaking-down-the-power-structure-of-the-ncaa-council-vote/#more-5538

I suggest you read the linked article before spouting off that this process will be inclusive. Hint: it won't.

The D1 LC level will receive comments from conference commissioners and teams and determine the proposals merit first. I'll let you find the reference.

Slap Shot
11-26-2015, 10:15 PM
Can't win on the ice, change the rules to suit yourself...not surprised.

They won more games the last 4 years than every other program, Jan.

manurespreader
11-26-2015, 10:54 PM
I agree with you Stauber1. I would add that there has been some discussion among coaches that compliance to the proposed legislation would contribute to rushing the development of players in juniors.



I rather tend to agree with Don Lucia and his career experience on this point that players in juniors are often told by their D1 coaching staff to stay three years for various reasons other than concerns for their development. When a player signs a LOI, he is promised a roster spot and intends to land at his D1 destination for at least the required one season asap. Typically players do not expect to play three years of juniors after signing an LOI.

However, what seems all too common today is that next step to D1 is entirely dependent on early departures, mutable recruiting strategies of the D1 coaching staff, current D1 player development or the current class structure of the roster. What has been statistically apparent every college hockey season is the developmental aspects of juniors as they directly apply to the D1 level and style of college hockey are not "highly" correlated. Every season players who emerge from juniors into D1 typically do NOT experience the same level of success, and generally speaking need at least a season to adjust to the pace, physicality and quality of NCAA D1 college hockey. In my view, a proposal that would require a D1 coaching staff to calibrate their rosters to bring players in after 2 years of juniors is contributing to their development, not impeding it. In my view, this may essentially translate into increasing the developmental capital of smaller schools.
Well I would agree on some points, but you missed a few rather big issues along the way. Sure, some players are kept in juniors a year longer because a coach was planning for an early departure that didn't happen. But that doesn't justify forcing teams to move that junior player up.
Second, It's patently obvious that there is other motivation and though maybe the age of a senior player is a few months older, you would be hard pressed to show me how a 24 yr old is less developed than a 25 year old , or that the difference in age is something that is causing harm to anyone. Not only that, Lucia has had a problem with the stockpiling of players by some schools for quite a while, and this proposal would hit that practice directly. So it seems to me that is the real reason. Even though the B1G and the other top school like BC or Miami, have done it in the past.
I don't believe that the proposal would have any significant affect on development at all. Certainly not one that could be statistically significant. I think it's all about getting a bigger pool of recruits for the top schools to pick from.

The Exiled One
11-26-2015, 10:59 PM
I rather tend to agree with Don Lucia and his career experience on this point that players in juniors are often told by their D1 coaching staff to stay three years for various reasons other than concerns for their development. When a player signs a LOI, he is promised a roster spot and intends to land at his D1 destination for at least the required one season asap. Typically players do not expect to play three years of juniors after signing an LOI.
I don't think this is really an issue. Thankfully it's something that can be checked. I'll peruse the data in the next couple of days. My guess is that the vast majority of 21 year old freshmen committed at the age of 19 or older.

omahasioux1
11-26-2015, 11:27 PM
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.Talent to match up with Minnesota?

Patronick
11-27-2015, 12:10 AM
The D1 LC level will receive comments from conference commissioners and teams and determine the proposals merit first. I'll let you find the reference.

Suggesting that "comments from conference commissioners" makes the process inclusive when 22 programs won't have a voice when it comes to a vote is monumentally naive. More so when you consider that the B10's vote counts time four. Coupled with the ACC vote counting times four, they Yeas are already at 8 of the 27 votes needed to pass. The only likely Nay vote that will count four times is Arizona State, which is itself ridiculous. They just joined college hockey, yet they carry more weight than a majority of the programs. Schools that do not participate in hockey are going to decide this vote, which is an absolute joke.

To suggest this issue is about anything other than competitive advantage is just pure ignorance. If it was about a level playing field, Lucia and the rest of the B10 wouldn't have circumvented the other coaches with a sneak attack. Their actions are all the proof anyone should need.

Happy
11-27-2015, 06:50 AM
since most of these young men will never make a living playing hockey, it's clearly in their best interest to graduate when they are younger, and not waste prime earning years playing a game.