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

St. Clown
11-27-2015, 08:45 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.
Yes, push those young men who may not be emotionally matured enough at 18 to a university at an early age into school anyway, or out of the programs entirely. Makes sense to not only their lifetime success, but who content they are with their lives.

The other option for the U is to just tell more of their players that they need a year or two in the juniors between high school and college. Lucia is so scared of losing the big name recruits that he allows them into his program before they're ready.

The irony is that Lucia would do well to recruit some of those lesser sought-after players to have as role players than to constantly go after the big names and hope they're willing to fall into a role and stick it out three years.

Patman
11-27-2015, 08:52 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.

A wasted youth is better by far than a wise and productive old age. --Jim Steinman "Everything Louder than Everything Else", Bat out of Hell II.

TalonsUpPuckDown
11-27-2015, 09:10 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.

How sporting of you to decide what's clearly in the best interest of someone you've never met before...

mookie1995
11-27-2015, 09:28 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.

Awesome :D

davyd83
11-27-2015, 10:17 AM
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.

49 coaches feel differently. Coaches are hired, fired and judged on two things. Wins and losses. If a kid is ready to come in and play regularly and contribute. He will. If it is better for a player to have another year of development, that's how it goes.

Wisko McBadgerton
11-27-2015, 10:42 AM
A wasted youth is better by far than a wise and productive old age. --Jim Steinman "Everything Louder than Everything Else", Bat out of Hell II.

To be fair, Steinman wrote that while in his early 40's.

He also went to college at 18. Imagine that! :p

St. Clown
11-27-2015, 11:04 AM
Awesome :D

Yup, got trolled pretty good there.

dxmnkd316
11-27-2015, 12:09 PM
Frankly I think this is a complete joke. I'm really peeved this is coming from my team. It's embarrassing.

Patman
11-27-2015, 12:22 PM
To be fair, Steinman wrote that while in his early 40's.

He also went to college at 18. Imagine that! :p

Yes and he was old enough to be jealous of those who went out and lived their lives

Happy
11-27-2015, 03:59 PM
How sporting of you to decide what's clearly in the best interest of someone you've never met before...

I would be happy to fix your problems for you over the internet, too.

Slap Shot
11-27-2015, 05:56 PM
I'm impressed with the backlash this is getting. I'm intrigued to find out what Lucia or other coaches responses will be on this subject.

If they're doing it right they're going to say, "G F Y".


But now that he is currently 32-39-11 (.457) as a head coach, it's apparently all the small schools fault in recruiting "overaged canadians" that his team sucks and can't win games.

Where was it written this is the reason for the proposal?


“So they are looking out for their program, and I am looking out for ours."

There it is. The rest is window dressing.

In context I think he's more saying, "Bite me" and pointing out the hypocrisy of the whining about the proposal.

[edit]One other thing about the B1G regarding the student athlete - they have been pushing to have a mandatory redshirt year in FB for a few years. Is that because the B1G can't compete in that sport?

SteveO
11-27-2015, 06:24 PM
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.

I read the first sentence and you lost me. When you quote please try to be accurate.

TalonsUpPuckDown
11-27-2015, 07:04 PM
I would be happy to fix your problems for you over the internet, too.

Great! Here's my current problem. The Minnesota hockey coach is acting like a creep (not the word I want to use to describe his behavior, but I'm sure you get the idea). Can you use your internet problem-solving powers and get on that for me ASAP? Maybe talk some sense into him? Appreciate it, you're the best.

UML Puck Hawk
11-27-2015, 07:08 PM
I read the first sentence and you lost me. When you quote please try to be accurate.

Conference commissioners mean of those conferences which support many D1 sports. Thus conferences like the AHC, WCHA, NCHC, HEA, and ECAC (less sure on this one) do not get a vote. The conferences they belong to for all other sports (America East, Patriot League, Ivy League, MAC, etc.) do get a vote. I imagine the 22 programs (or 36.67% of all the teams in NCAA D1) are the teams which hockey is their play up sport.

St. Clown
11-27-2015, 08:33 PM
Listening to the Gopher post game show, and Lucia was on there talking. I was in the process of turning off the broadcast when I hear Lucia say, "...and it's especially disappointing when it's some older guy..." and that's where when I had hit the switch. Morley scored SCSU's first goal of the night. Morley is a 25yo senior, so I think that's where Lucia was going with it.

Patronick
11-27-2015, 08:44 PM
I read the first sentence and you lost me. When you quote please try to be accurate.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Almington
11-27-2015, 08:45 PM
Conference commissioners mean of those conferences which support many D1 sports. Thus conferences like the AHC, WCHA, NCHC, HEA, and ECAC (less sure on this one) do not get a vote. The conferences they belong to for all other sports (America East, Patriot League, Ivy League, MAC, etc.) do get a vote. I imagine the 22 programs (or 36.67% of all the teams in NCAA D1) are the teams which hockey is their play up sport.

That's the trade-off the schools made when they chose to play up in any sport: you may not get to sit at the table when the decisions are made. You want a seat you have to elevate all your athletics to D1.

Stauber1
11-27-2015, 09:08 PM
Listening to the Gopher post game show, and Lucia was on there talking. I was in the process of turning off the broadcast when I hear Lucia say, "...and it's especially disappointing when it's some older guy..." and that's where when I had hit the switch. Morley scored SCSU's first goal of the night. Morley is a 25yo senior, so I think that's where Lucia was going with it.

St. Clown, you have just explained 90% of the conspiracy theory nonsense going on in this thread.
Lucia was talking about it being frustrating to see his veteran players making mistakes....C. Reilly wandering away from Benik leaving him open to score the GWG, and Bischoff taking the penalty to put SCSU on the PP where they scored the tying goal. The full quote was "it's especially disappointing when it's some of the older guys making those mistakes." He was talking about the veteran guys on his own team.

I get that it's always nice to have a villain, and the Big10 has done plenty oblige. There is enough wrong with the way this proposal is being introduced to have everyone more than a little upset. But the illogical and irrational conclusions so many are jumping to is just ridiculous.

This proposal is going to do something, anything, 1 iota, to bring more 18yos into college hockey?
The team that has won more games than anyone else over the past 4 seasons is changing the rules because they are fed up with losing?
Multiple schools are going to drop their programs if this proposal takes effect?
Somehow all of the Big 10 relies on blue-chip true-freshman when Ohio St. has more players who would be affected by this than Tech, or Union, or Quinnipiac, or Providence, or Yale, or Duluth, or St. Cloud (or any number of other programs)?

This proposal would hit some schools very hard. Some meaning a handful. And they are pretty much all Atlantic Hockey and mid-bottom tier WCHA teams. Or put another way, teams that aren't going to really be competing for NCAA Tournament births (let alone FF appearances or National Titles) regardless. I'm all on board with saying these are teams that don't need to be kicked while they are down, but extrapolating that this is going to give the Big 10 some sort of significant advantage is pure fantasy.

I'll say it again. This proposal is the result of zealotry, not underhanded gamesmanship.

Shirtless Guy
11-27-2015, 10:08 PM
That's the trade-off the schools made when they chose to play up in any sport: you may not get to sit at the table when the decisions are made. You want a seat you have to elevate all your athletics to D1.

I call BS on that. A school like Michigan Tech was playing "D1" hockey long before there were any rules and to say that they should just become D1 in everything if they want a seat at the table is BS. Hockey is unique and there is nothing wrong with it being different. The Big Twn shouldn't get a special advantage in changing the rule of a sport that is so heavily setup with play-ups.

SteveO
11-27-2015, 10:15 PM
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Accuracy, not understanding is the issue. That was very clear in my post.