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

Shirtless Guy
11-30-2015, 02:58 PM
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.

Say whatever you want but Minnesota has always stood on the premise of promoting hockey in Minnesota. It would not reflect well on the flagship do promote something that hurts Minnesotan hockey players.

The Exiled One
11-30-2015, 03:33 PM
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.
Here's the data I'm working from (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_7csfJTAerKh_49NhYp6oXQkuLRrRwU_1puL3_Y0dyQ/edit?usp=sharing) with a few minor edits since my last post.

Wisko McBadgerton
11-30-2015, 04:22 PM
Here's the data I'm working from (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_7csfJTAerKh_49NhYp6oXQkuLRrRwU_1puL3_Y0dyQ/edit?usp=sharing) with a few minor edits since my last post.

Thanks for posting. Question. I think only about 13% of these guys play for teams in the current top 20 PWR. A little more than 20% of them play for teams with records of .500 or above. If this practice is what is making smaller market teams so good, and it is what Lucia is afraid of, shouldn't there be a larger representation of these players among teams with a winning record?

The Exiled One
11-30-2015, 04:47 PM
Thanks for posting. Question. I think only about 13% of these guys play for teams in the current top 20 PWR. A little more than 20% of them play for teams with records of .500 or above. If this practice is what is making smaller market teams so good, and it is what Lucia is afraid of, shouldn't there be a larger representation of these players among teams with a winning record?
Makes you wonder why Lucia is pushing it at all, right?

I think the premise is just to hurt "the field" in order to benefit those who don't rely on those types of players. In short, it's about reducing parity.

Also, it's important to note that this is just a one season sample. You'd have to go back three more years to see how 21 year-old freshmen truly impact parity.

Almington
11-30-2015, 05:31 PM
Here's the data I'm working from (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_7csfJTAerKh_49NhYp6oXQkuLRrRwU_1puL3_Y0dyQ/edit?usp=sharing) with a few minor edits since my last post.

Did all those players play three years of juniors after graduation from high school?

I wonder how many of those players would have still come in if the age limit was 20. After the first year of adjustment, it seems that many players would still be recruited in the year prior to enrollment.

For me, the bigger issue is what will this do to the USHL by shrinking the available player pool by about 25 to 30%. That can have some impact on the quality of play which would impact development of all incoming players (regardless of age).

Doesn't change the fact that the Big Ten is acting like whiny, entitled petulant children with how they are trying to push this change through.

Slap Shot
11-30-2015, 05:51 PM
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?

It was a snide retort to another coach wanting to do what's best for his program. The difference is if Lucia really felt his program could no longer compete (most wins the 4 years coming into this one, 2 Frozen Fours and a NC game so that argument is ludicrous on its face) all he'd have to do is recruit older players himself. He wouldn't have to go to the trouble of supposedly jerry-rigging the rules.

There is all kinds of logic in seeing the altruism in the proposal and absolutely none in the crying wolf argument.

The Exiled One
11-30-2015, 05:52 PM
Did all those players play three years of juniors after graduation from high school?

I wonder how many of those players would have still come in if the age limit was 20. After the first year of adjustment, it seems that many players would still be recruited in the year prior to enrollment.

For me, the bigger issue is what will this do to the USHL by shrinking the available player pool by about 25 to 30%. That can have some impact on the quality of play which would impact development of all incoming players (regardless of age).

Doesn't change the fact that the Big Ten is acting like whiny, entitled petulant children with how they are trying to push this change through.
Most, I'm sure. A few will be summer birthdays held back. A few are transfers.

I highly doubt Lucia gives a rat's behind about the USHL. Plus, his objective is to bring down the average quality of an NCAA player, so damaging the USHL would only serve to aid that effort.

dxmnkd316
11-30-2015, 07:28 PM
Say whatever you want but Minnesota has always stood on the premise of promoting hockey in Minnesota. It would not reflect well on the flagship do promote something that hurts Minnesotan hockey players.

Do yourself a favor and don't read GPL. They would just assume sell every other team down the river and to hell with anything that doesn't help the Gophers.

Wisko McBadgerton
11-30-2015, 10:24 PM
Did all those players play three years of juniors after graduation from high school?

I wonder how many of those players would have still come in if the age limit was 20. After the first year of adjustment, it seems that many players would still be recruited in the year prior to enrollment.

For me, the bigger issue is what will this do to the USHL by shrinking the available player pool by about 25 to 30%. That can have some impact on the quality of play which would impact development of all incoming players (regardless of age).

Doesn't change the fact that the Big Ten is acting like whiny, entitled petulant children with how they are trying to push this change through.

The USHL allows only four 20 year olds per team or about 17% of all rostered players. (or about 8% if you count total players and affiliates.) The USHL is, of course, opposed to this proposal as it affects them, yet they themselves prefer a system which tends toward developing younger high end players rather than move toward older more mature players that would probably make the league "tougher". I guess because that has worked for them.

Stauber1
11-30-2015, 10:32 PM
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?

If you think I am a "staunch" defender of Lucia, or of this proposal, you clearly have not been reading this thread (or any number of others over the years).

As to the question you posit, I assume you are working from Dan Myers' blog post.
I saw that as an arrogant, self-righteous personality getting fed up with being lectured to and giving a simple answer to what he perceived as a simple question.
Or in SS's words, he was being snide.

I'll keep saying it over, and over and over.....look at the data. The conferences that the Big 10 really would want to gain a leg up on are HE, the NCHC and the ECAC. The Big 10 has a higher percentage of its players who would be affected by this proposal than all 3 of those conferences.

Stauber1
11-30-2015, 10:33 PM
Makes you wonder why Lucia is pushing it at all, right?

I think the premise is just to hurt "the field" in order to benefit those who don't rely on those types of players...

lol.
Yes, when you start with the notion that Lucia is spearheading this to gain a competitive advantage, and then you look at the actual data, it does make you wonder why he would be pushing it....hmm....

Maybe there is another reason, that isn't completely illogical? Just a thought.

Stauber1
11-30-2015, 11:05 PM
...There is all kinds of logic in seeing the altruism in the proposal and absolutely none in the crying wolf argument.

Exactly. Even if you don't share the view that this really is in the best interest of the student athletes, it's hard to argue that if you did think it's important to get kids to school earlier, this proposal is a good way to address that.

If you look at the data it doesn't show this proposal as doing much of anything to benefit the Gophers (let alone the Big 10) in improving their stature in the national picture.

If you look at the argument that MN is fed up with losing, it can only be based on the first 11 games of this year. Because if you go back to the 4 previous seasons, no team has won more games than MN. If you go back the past 5 (which includes a very mediocre year for the Gophers) no current NCHC team has won more hardware or been to as many FF's, and when looking at all teams in the nation only BC and Union match them in FF appearances or exceed them in hardware won. The argument that Lucia is "fed up with losing" is farcical.

But more telling, if you look at statements made and interviews given by Lucia over the past decade, you see a theme that neatly aligns with the stated intention of this proposal.


The night after I started posting on this issue, I was listening to the GPL podcast. On that show, they discussed this proposal. I found it interesting that one of the guys on the show (Vegoe) straight away went to the same place I had. To paraphrase, he said: Lucia is on a mission to fix college hockey. He thinks it's broken and he wants to fix it.

This is a sort of crusade for Lucia. We can debate the merits of that crusade, and (probably more importantly) the mechanisms being used to wage it. But we shouldn't waste our time with knee-jerk, emotional responses that make absolutely no sense when scrutinized.

Tipsy McStagger
11-30-2015, 11:18 PM
Exactly. Even if you don't share the view that this really is in the best interest of the student athletes, it's hard to argue that if you did think it's important to get kids to school earlier, this proposal is a good way to address that.

If you look at the data it doesn't show this proposal as doing much of anything to benefit the Gophers (let alone the Big 10) in improving their stature in the national picture.

If you look at the argument that MN is fed up with losing, it can only be based on the first 11 games of this year. Because if you go back to the 4 previous seasons, no team has won more games than MN. If you go back the past 5 (which includes a very mediocre year for the Gophers) no current NCHC team has won more hardware or been to as many FF's, and when looking at all teams in the nation only BC and Union match them in FF appearances or exceed them in hardware won. The argument that Lucia is "fed up with losing" is farcical.

But more telling, if you look at statements made and interviews given by Lucia over the past decade, you see a theme that neatly aligns with the stated intention of this proposal.


The night after I started posting on this issue, I was listening to the GPL podcast. On that show, they discussed this proposal. I found it interesting that one of the guys on the show (Vegoe) straight away went to the same place I had. To paraphrase, he said: Lucia is on a mission to fix college hockey. He thinks it's broken and he wants to fix it.

This is a sort of crusade for Lucia. We can debate the merits of that crusade, and (probably more importantly) the mechanisms being used to wage it. But we shouldn't waste our time with knee-jerk, emotional responses that make absolutely no sense when scrutinized.
Speaking of wasting time, how much time have you spent defending Lou Chia in this thread?

Stauber1
11-30-2015, 11:34 PM
Speaking of wasting time, how much time have you spent defending Lou Chia in this thread?

Probably less than it took you to search-and-peck that post.
Interesting that you don't really have any sort of cogent response to the content, though. Also interesting that yet again someone chooses to see my posts as a defense of Lucia. I think that says quite a bit about the biases some people are approaching this with.

Honestly, I think this is a pretty important moment in our sport, but not at all because of what so many people are getting wound up about.
I saw the formation of the Big 10 conference not only as sacrilege, but also as an ominous sign. The way this legislation is being unilaterally brought forward fits in with that. One of the things I have always loved about college hockey is that it was unique in the college sports landscape. I don't want to see that change.

I think Sandelin's response was stupid, not just based on merit, but also tactically. The best way for this proposal to successfully work its way through the NCAA bureaucracy is if the opposition to it is nothing more than "they just want to win more!"
That claim just wont hold up. And I'd like to see the Big 10 have their proverbial toe bit as they dip it into this water.

Tipsy McStagger
11-30-2015, 11:47 PM
Probably less than it took you to search-and-peck that post.
Interesting that you don't really have any sort of cogent response to the content, though.

Honestly, I think this is a pretty important moment in our sport, but not at all because of what so many people are getting wound up about.
I saw the formation of the Big 10 conference not only as sacrilege, but also as an ominous sign. The way this legislation is being unilaterally brought forward fits in with that. One of the things I have always loved about college hockey is that it was unique in the college sports landscape. I don't want to see that change.

I think Sandelin's response was stupid, not just based on merit, but also tactically. The best way for this proposal to successfully work its way through the NCAA bureaucracy is if the opposition to it is nothing more than "they just want to win more!"
That claim just wont hold up. And I'd like to see the Big 10 have their proverbial toe bit as they dip it into this water.
No, it didn't take me longer to type one sentence than it took you to type 20 posts to defend Don's motives.

We're happy for the Gophers and the hardware they won. The Big 10 hardware doesn't impress anyone. The conference was a complete joke last year, as evidenced by the Gophers getting smoked by Duluth in the first round and no other team making the tournament. The B1G is a 1 bid conference this year, not looking like more than 2 in any year. That isn't good for the Gophers. Wisconsin has become a laughingstock who is hemorrhaging recruits. Michigan has a 75 year old coach and hasn't been a contender in 5 years. MSU hasn't won anything in 10 years. OSU hasn't made the tournament in ages. Penn State doesn't look bad, but they haven't done anything of note. One way to strengthen their conference is to weaken others. This proposal does that. You can repeat your opinion that his mission is altruistic, but outside of B1G loyalists, no one is buying it.

By the way, pretty sure North Dakota has made two final fours in the last 5 years, have the Gophers made 3?

Stauber1
12-01-2015, 12:10 AM
No, it didn't take me longer to type one sentence than it took you to type 20 posts to defend Don's motives.

We're happy for the Gophers and the hardware they won. The Big 10 hardware doesn't impress anyone. The conference was a complete joke last year, as evidenced by the Gophers getting smoked by Duluth in the first round and no other team making the tournament. The B1G is a 1 bid conference this year, not looking like more than 2 in any year. That isn't good for the Gophers. Wisconsin has become a laughingstock who is hemorrhaging recruits. Michigan has a 75 year old coach and hasn't been a contender in 5 years. MSU hasn't won anything in 10 years. OSU hasn't made the tournament in ages. Penn State doesn't look bad, but they haven't done anything of note. One way to strengthen their conference is to weaken others. This proposal does that. You can repeat your opinion that his mission is altruistic, but outside of B1G loyalists, no one is buying it.

By the way, pretty sure North Dakota has made two final fours in the last 5 years, have the Gophers made 3?

Tuche, UND was at the 2011 FF. I think the point remains.
And I'm glad that we can agree that MN has done more than its share of winning and the idea that Lucia is fed up with losing doesn't hold water.

As for the rest, while some of what you say is true and some debatable, it still doesn't explain how this proposal would strengthen the Big 10 in relation to any teams outside of Atlantic Hockey and the bottom half of the WCHA - teams that aren't competing for top-16 PWR spots regardless. The one team that could be considered an exception to that is Mankato.
Look...at...the...data...

And speaking of arrogance, how does it feel to be the spokesman for everyone who isn't a "big 10 loyalist"?

Shirtless Guy
12-01-2015, 12:12 AM
Tuche, UND was at the 2011 FF. I think the point remains.
And I'm glad that we can agree that MN has done more than its share of winning and the idea that Lucia is fed up with losing doesn't hold water.

As for the rest, while some of what you say is true and some debatable, it still doesn't explain how this proposal would strengthen the Big 10 in relation to any teams outside of Atlantic Hockey and the bottom half of the WCHA - teams that aren't competing for top-16 PWR spots regardless. The one team that could be considered an exception to that is Mankato.
Look...at...the...data...

And speaking of arrogance, how does it feel to be the spokesman for everyone who isn't a "big 10 loyalist"?

Can't it be about making those nearby cupcakes worse to pad their win totals with home wins?

Stauber1
12-01-2015, 12:19 AM
Can't it be about making those nearby cupcakes worse to pad their win totals with home wins?

All teams competing for NCAA tournament births would gain the same advantage. That still wouldn't do anything to improve the Big 10's standing in relation to those teams they would be competing against for NCAA tournament births.

Not to mention that point I have already mentioned, the Big 10 has a higher percentage of its players who would be affected by this than the ECAC, NCHC or HE.

dxmnkd316
12-01-2015, 12:22 AM
If you think I am a "staunch" defender of Lucia, or of this proposal, you clearly have not been reading this thread (or any number of others over the years).

As to the question you posit, I assume you are working from Dan Myers' blog post.
I saw that as an arrogant, self-righteous personality getting fed up with being lectured to and giving a simple answer to what he perceived as a simple question.
Or in SS's words, he was being snide.

I'll keep saying it over, and over and over.....look at the data. The conferences that the Big 10 really would want to gain a leg up on are HE, the NCHC and the ECAC. The Big 10 has a higher percentage of its players who would be affected by this proposal than all 3 of those conferences.

Pretty sure that's a red herring. Minnesota's oldest have hardly been anything more than third and fourth liners or healthy scratches. Other teams have kids that are major contributors at that age.


Didn't someone else on this thread (Shirtless) find that the Big Ten was least affected by this proposal?

Stauber1
12-01-2015, 12:32 AM
Pretty sure that's a red herring. Minnesota's oldest have hardly been anything more than third and fourth liners or healthy scratches. Other teams have kids that are major contributors at that age.


Didn't someone else on this thread (Shirtless) find that the Big Ten was least affected by this proposal?

In an admittedly rather cursory look at only about 8 or 9 teams (UMD, Quinn, Union, Prov to name a few) the vast majority of their guys who would fall under this legislation were 3rd/4th line players. Outside of that, a higher percentage than normal seemed to either be routinely scratched or end up leaving the team prior to using their full eligibility (presumably due to lack of playing time, judging by the number of games they had played prior to their departures).

I'm not sure where the idea that the Big 10 would be least affected by this came from...that wasn't shown in any of the info I have seen reported (either by me or by someone else).

EDIT: I'll repeat something I had said earlier, which is that the number of players in the Big 10 who would be affected by this is probably inflated due to PSU's recent entrance into D1 hockey. Their first year, they had about 5 guys who fell into this category. Adjusting for that, it would bring the Big 10 about on par with HE and the NCHC, but still more than the ECAC.