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

4four4
11-28-2015, 12:48 PM
what did change is the BIG became the first all-sport league with direct representation. Before that, there really wasn't any direct way to change anything in hockey so pardon me for thinking this special case doesn't mean that Michigan Tech should done something 30 years ago to prevent this. Apparently this was all part of the plan with starting the BIG in hockey.

I believe there are more ideas coming down the pipe that people will be unhappy with. Buckle up we are not done yet.

Shirtless Guy
11-28-2015, 01:04 PM
I believe there are more ideas coming down the pipe that people will be unhappy with. Buckle up we are not done yet.

Wouldn't surprise me.

dxmnkd316
11-28-2015, 01:05 PM
That's why it's so important to push back now. This is just the beginning of the big schools marginalizing the small schools. It has nothing to do with the health of the game, diversity, or competitive balance. It has everything to do with shifting the balance of power back to the big schools.

Dirty
11-28-2015, 01:07 PM
I believe there are more ideas coming down the pipe that people will be unhappy with. Buckle up we are not done yet.

Lucia will next be introducing legislation making it against the rules for non-Big Five Conference schools to host Big Five Conference teams in non-conference game. Non-Big Five teams will have to go on the road. This includes forcing the Alaska schools to have their tournaments played at Marriucci/Yost/etc. should a BIG team be invited to the tournament.

4four4
11-28-2015, 01:12 PM
That's why it's so important to push back now. This is just the beginning of the big schools marginalizing the small schools. It has nothing to do with the health of the game, diversity, or competitive balance. It has everything to do with shifting the balance of power back to the big schools.

You can push back but the NCAA likely will listen to the Big Ten before the rest of college hockey. ;)

First Time, Long Time
11-28-2015, 01:52 PM
You can push back but the NCAA likely will listen to the Big Ten before the rest of college hockey. ;)

And that's a major problem.

Stauber1
11-28-2015, 03:37 PM
And that's a major problem.

Agreed, it is a serious problem. And that's why it's important that criticism be focused where it is merited rather than on knee-jerk responses that just don't hold up to scrutiny.

ScoobyDoo
11-28-2015, 03:45 PM
This season Big 10 gets an autobid and the rule of their choice. Can't wait till next year.

First Time, Long Time
11-28-2015, 06:26 PM
Agreed, it is a serious problem. And that's why it's important that criticism be focused where it is merited rather than on knee-jerk responses that just don't hold up to scrutiny.

To me...the why matters less than the fact it was done in the first place.
I think there is likely some truth to the not winning angle of it but at this point the why is irrelevant.
The fact that 6 schools want to dictate to 54 others is the height if arrogance...but sadly right on par with P5 schools and the B1G.

4four4
11-29-2015, 10:45 PM
To me...the why matters less than the fact it was done in the first place.
I think there is likely some truth to the not winning angle of it but at this point the why is irrelevant.
The fact that 6 schools want to dictate to 54 others is the height if arrogance...but sadly right on par with P5 schools and the B1G.

Hey the Big Ten makes sure every body knows that they are Public Ivies. It's all about the student athletes in fact they would rather be known for curing cancer than winning championships.

dxmnkd316
11-29-2015, 10:54 PM
Frankly, athletics are small potatoes when it comes to the real Big Ten, the CIC.

There are departments at the U that probably bring in more research money than the athletics department.

LynahFan
11-30-2015, 02:17 AM
Agreed, it is a serious problem. And that's why it's important that criticism be focused where it is merited rather than on knee-jerk responses that just don't hold up to scrutiny.So, since you are such a staunch defender of this proposal, care to explain what Lucia meant when he said he was "looking out for his team?" If it's not about trying to gain a competitive advantage for the Gophers in terms of wins and losses, in exactly what way *would* this benefit the Gophers?

Lucia just made it perfectly clear that he's not thinking altruistically about the development of players or the graduation rates or the employment prospects of the overaged players *on other teams* - he believes that this is, in some way, about looking out for *his* team. So what way is that? What benefit do the Gophers get, aside from wins and losses?

joecct
11-30-2015, 10:52 AM
So, since you are such a staunch defender of this proposal, care to explain what Lucia meant when he said he was "looking out for his team?" If it's not about trying to gain a competitive advantage for the Gophers in terms of wins and losses, in exactly what way *would* this benefit the Gophers?

Lucia just made it perfectly clear that he's not thinking altruistically about the development of players or the graduation rates or the employment prospects of the overaged players *on other teams* - he believes that this is, in some way, about looking out for *his* team. So what way is that? What benefit do the Gophers get, aside from wins and losses?

Who signs tDon's paycheck? That's his loyalty.

Shirtless Guy
11-30-2015, 12:35 PM
Interesting note, the state or province most effected by this rule change would be Minnesota.
41 current players from Minnesota were 21 yo as freshmen (20.2% of all players from Minnesota)
The rest of the top 8 were
Ontario 40 (20.6%)
Alberta 25 (28.4%)
Michigan 25 (17.9%)
British Columbia 20 (18.2%)
New York 16 (16.7%)
Pennsylvania 15 (28.3%)
Massachusetts 13 (11.9%)

The Exiled One
11-30-2015, 01:38 PM
Here's a bit more data based on the best available information...

• Using an arbitrary date of 9/1 (which should work well enough for our purposes), there are approximately 99 freshmen who started school this season at the age of 21
• Thanks to Chris Heisenberg's spreadsheet, I have the approximate commitment date of 94 of them
• Approximately 4.3% of them committed while still in high school
• 19.1% of them committed after the age of 21
• 73.4% of them committed after the age of 20
• 95.7% of them committed after high school graduation
• 70.2% of them committed less than a year before they enrolled
• At most, 21.3% came in a season after they expected to come in

St. Clown
11-30-2015, 01:46 PM
Interesting note, the state or province most effected by this rule change would be Minnesota.
41 current players from Minnesota were 21 yo as freshmen (20.2% of all players from Minnesota)
The rest of the top 8 were
Ontario 40 (20.6%)
Alberta 25 (28.4%)
Michigan 25 (17.9%)
British Columbia 20 (18.2%)
New York 16 (16.7%)
Pennsylvania 15 (28.3%)
Massachusetts 13 (11.9%)

That's kind of an irrelevant note rather than an interesting note, isn't it? Lucia et al. don't care about the home states from which the older players originate, only that they're playing for the B1G Mistake's competition.

Bale
11-30-2015, 02:03 PM
70.2% of them committed less than a year before they enrolled

That, to me, is the most ****ing argument against Lucia's statements. He publicly talked about how coaches were stashing players until they were older other coaches were just recruiting them at that point. This Stat completely takes Lucia reasoning and blows it apart.

goldy_331
11-30-2015, 02:08 PM
Lucia will next be introducing legislation making it against the rules for non-Big Five Conference schools to host Big Five Conference teams in non-conference game. Non-Big Five teams will have to go on the road. This includes forcing the Alaska schools to have their tournaments played at Marriucci/Yost/etc. should a BIG team be invited to the tournament.
Great idea. I'll forward that on to Lucia in case he hasn't thought of it yet!

The Exiled One
11-30-2015, 02:26 PM
That, to me, is the most ****ing argument against Lucia's statements. He publicly talked about how coaches were stashing players until they were older other coaches were just recruiting them at that point. This Stat completely takes Lucia reasoning and blows it apart.
Yup. Realistically, 78.7% or more weren't "stashed" as they certainly came in the year they expected to. A kid committing in the spring knows where he'll be playing the following fall. So, he may be committed for more than 365 days, but he knew all along which class he'd be a part of. At most, 21.3% were "stashed". It's almost certainly less than that.

Shirtless Guy
11-30-2015, 02:55 PM
Here's a bit more data based on the best available information...

Using an arbitrary date of 9/1 (which should work well enough for our purposes), there are approximately 99 freshmen who started school this season at the age of 21
Thanks to Chris Heisenberg's spreadsheet, I have the approximate commitment date of 94 of them
Approximately 4.3% of them committed while still in high school
19.1% of them committed after the age of 21
73.4% of them committed after the age of 20
95.7% of them committed after high school graduation
70.2% of them committed less than a year before they enrolled
At most, 21.3% came in a season after they expected to come in

If you'd like to compare lists of players involved, I'd love to share.
I show there are 101 freshman that fit the 21 yo category if you use 9/1 (6 of which were in August so didn't make the cut on my list). I will try and clean up the rest and post to googledocs. Otherwise contact me through the USCHO email feature.