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

Wisko McBadgerton
12-01-2015, 06:40 AM
Here's a different take on related issues from The Junior Hockey News: http://thejuniorhockeynews.com/?p=51180

Tipsy McStagger
12-01-2015, 07:18 AM
And speaking of arrogance, how does it feel to be the spokesman for everyone who isn't a "big 10 loyalist"?
I am not acting as a spokesman, just reading the responses in this thread.

Dirty
12-01-2015, 07:49 AM
Perhaps complaining about the opponent being older than you is a new University of Minnesota Athletics policy? Gopher basketball player, Joey King (http://www.gophersports.com/sports/m-baskbl/recaps/113015aap.html), after last night's game against Clemson: "They were a little bit older than us, more physical, a bigger team"

FlagDUDE08
12-01-2015, 08:45 AM
They're bigger, they're stronger, they're faster, they... have more facial hair. :p

The Exiled One
12-01-2015, 09:03 AM
Question for proposal supporters: If most schools are against it and the B1G is unanimously for it, why don't they just implement the rule at the conference level?

St. Clown
12-01-2015, 09:12 AM
Question for proposal supporters: If most schools are against it and the B1G is unanimously for it, why don't they just implement the rule at the conference level?

It would truly be a credit to the league if they did that. The B1G says that younger players would reflect the average college student, which these players theoretically are (most are). The ECAC did this to its perceived detriment long ago with its refusal to permit athletic scholarships for member schools. In recent years and some of its member schools have clearly been able to overcome this hurdle and have yet to make any attempt at forcing the rest of college hockey to this same policy. It makes the ECAC all the more impressive and the B1G look all the more pathetic.

Shirtless Guy
12-01-2015, 09:16 AM
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.

I'm through the Ms on comparing Heisenberg 2011-2015 to my current database to get dates of commitment

Red Cloud
12-01-2015, 10:35 AM
It would truly be a credit to the league if they did that. The B1G says that younger players would reflect the average college student, which these players theoretically are (most are). The ECAC did this to its perceived detriment long ago with its refusal to permit athletic scholarships for member schools. In recent years and some of its member schools have clearly been able to overcome this hurdle and have yet to make any attempt at forcing the rest of college hockey to this same policy. It makes the ECAC all the more impressive and the B1G look all the more pathetic.

The ECAC does not refuse to permit athletic scholarships for member schools - it is the Ivy League does this across the board in all sports. Clarkson, Colgate, Quinnipiac, St. Lawrence, and RPI all have athletic scholarships, Union is barred by the NCAA from offering athletic scholarships as a Division III school not grandfathered in 2004.

FlagDUDE08
12-01-2015, 10:37 AM
It would truly be a credit to the league if they did that. The B1G says that younger players would reflect the average college student, which these players theoretically are (most are). The ECAC did this to its perceived detriment long ago with its refusal to permit athletic scholarships for member schools. In recent years and some of its member schools have clearly been able to overcome this hurdle and have yet to make any attempt at forcing the rest of college hockey to this same policy. It makes the ECAC all the more impressive and the B1G look all the more pathetic.

And then there was Prop 65, looking to screw over RPI, CCT, SLU, CC, as well as JHU in lacrosse. Obviously the grandfathering with Prop 65-1 ended up coming into play, but this really isn't all that different of a situation.

BTW, Atlantic Hockey has the limit on scholarships above and beyond the NCAA limit, not the ECAC.

Bale
12-01-2015, 10:54 AM
So, dies anyone know the correct number of kids this would affect? According to some in this thread, its 100+ per class. According to Mike McMahon last week it is 25 per class or 100 total. I'm a bit confused on that.

Shirtless Guy
12-01-2015, 10:57 AM
So, dies anyone know the correct number of kids this would affect? According to some in this thread, its 100+ per class. According to Mike McMahon last week it is 25 per class or 100 total. I'm a bit confused on that.

The problem is that without a ton of digging, its hard to know. Its not cut and dry by DOB, each case is specific to when they were supposed to graduate high school.

LynahFan
12-01-2015, 11:09 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.If you're not a staunch defender then bravo to you - have you looked into an acting career?

So snide he said it twice... I'm not buying it.

Your protestation about the Big10 is a red herring. It's not about conference A vs. conference B - it's about haves vs. have nots. The marquee schools suck up all the 14-year-old blue chippers because they can. Only, it turns out that this strategy isn't completely successful because other schools can wait for some diamonds to emerge from the rough and thereby at least partially undermine that advantage. tDon cares as little about OSU and PSU as he does Union and Quinnipiac - if it helps UMinn and hurts all 4 of those programs, so much the better for him.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-01-2015, 11:09 AM
Question for proposal supporters: If most schools are against it and the B1G is unanimously for it, why don't they just implement the rule at the conference level?

I don't know that I'm a supporter, but it's more based on the way in which the B1G has gone about it rather than that I think it has much to do with competitive advantage, or even that I think it would be particularly bad to skew younger rather than older in College Hockey. But there's nothing saying the B1G wouldn't do this if they fail to get it through the NCAA. Although I don't think it wouldn't change much. If they have success, which is likely, everyone would just say it's because they unfairly get all the young draft picks that whoever, doesn't or can't. If they have a losing season it would be because they can't recruit 21 year olds, which is also very probably not the cause. The result probably wouldn't be leading any change of policy in D-1 Hockey, which is what they're looking to do.


It would truly be a credit to the league if they did that. The B1G says that younger players would reflect the average college student, which these players theoretically are (most are). The ECAC did this to its perceived detriment long ago with its refusal to permit athletic scholarships for member schools. In recent years and some of its member schools have clearly been able to overcome this hurdle and have yet to make any attempt at forcing the rest of college hockey to this same policy. It makes the ECAC all the more impressive and the B1G look all the more pathetic.

If you're thinking that ECAC players are (in general) paying their own tuition's, they're not. The Ivies and in this case the ECAC consists entirely of private schools that aren't bound by the same rules and accountability public schools are when it comes to admissions or handing out assistance. For example, my cousin was offered athletic scholarships elsewhere, but played football at Harvard on a full "academic" scholarship. I'm not sure the Ivies or the ECAC are leading anyone anywhere in that regard, as it seems much more a question of semantics, than non-scholarships.

LynahFan
12-01-2015, 11:16 AM
For example, my cousin was offered athletic scholarships elsewhere, but played football at Harvard on a full "academic" scholarship.There's no such thing as an academic scholarship at Harvard (or any other Ivy). Financial assistance is based on need, and need alone. Now, you can be named as a "McBadgerton Scholar" or other such awards based on your merit, but to the extent that there is any assistance tied to that honor, the amount has to be based solely on need. If Bill Gates, Jr. cured cancer at age 11, solved World Peace at 16 and won Olympic gold medals at 18, he'd still pay full tuition at Harvard.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-01-2015, 11:23 AM
There's no such thing as an academic scholarship at Harvard (or any other Ivy). Financial assistance is based on need, and need alone. Now, you can be named as a "McBadgerton Scholar" or other such awards based on your merit, but to the extent that there is any assistance tied to that honor, the amount has to be based solely on need. If Bill Gates, Jr. cured cancer at age 11, solved World Peace at 16 and won Olympic gold medals at 18, he'd still pay full tuition at Harvard.

Yes, I agree. I stated that poorly. My cousin paid virtually no tuition, because he met the fairly liberal requirements to do so. If your parents are making a million a year, you're paying the full way yourself. But I think in those cases the scholarships are obviously quite a bit less important anyway.

Edit: Just to clarify this a bit more, Ivies will generally match financial aid packages for athletes that Harvard, Princeton, or Yale offer. Currently at Princeton 120k/yr income or below and tuition is free as an example.

The Exiled One
12-01-2015, 11:43 AM
The result probably wouldn't be leading any change of policy in D-1 Hockey, which is what they're looking to do.
Leading is what you call it when others follow you voluntarily. That's clearly not what the B1G is doing.

I, for one, don't see them implementing the rule on a conference only level for reasons obvious to non-supporters.

LynahFan
12-01-2015, 11:46 AM
Yes, I agree. I stated that poorly. My cousin paid virtually no tuition, because he met the fairly liberal requirements to do so. If your parents are making a million a year, you're paying the full way yourself. But I think in those cases the scholarships are obviously quite a bit less important anyway.

Edit: Just to clarify this a bit more, Ivies will generally match financial aid packages for athletes that Harvard, Princeton, or Yale offer. Currently at Princeton 120k/yr income or below and tuition is free as an example.Just so.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-01-2015, 11:50 AM
Leading is what you call it when others follow you voluntarily.

What are you talking about? Benito Mussolini's nickname was literally "The Leader!"

Shirtless Guy
12-01-2015, 11:59 AM
Can we take a step back from the way this was brought up and have an honest discussion about the merits?

What about all the kids in Junior Hockey that are waiting around hoping to get a scholarship that never comes? And let's be honest, how many of these 21-yo freshmen are getting anywhere near a free ride? On the merits, I'm not really sure this is a bad thing. 21 is a long time to wait to move on with the rest of your life if you're not good enough to play hockey at the next level. Not everyone graduates on time and many 18 yos aren't really ready to make those decisions but at 20, you'd think most should be ready to pick a school, a major and start classes and either play D1, D3, or club hockey while getting their degree.

Ignore who suggested this and the reasons we all think they did it and tell me it isn't better for the players/students if the window narrowed a little?

Red Cloud
12-01-2015, 12:14 PM
CHN: How about a player like Christian Folin (who entered Lowell at 21 and now plays in the NHL)?

Lucia: He still would have had three years of eligibility, so he still would have gone to college. Nothing would have changed, he just wouldn’t have had the fourth year.

This, more than anything, is the most disingenuous part of Lucia's comments. Older players going on to college aren't expecting to end up in the NHL - they probably still want to, and see college as a last-chance opportunity to make the show, but in the front of their minds they're usually thinking "well, if I'm good enough to play in college, I can at least turn hockey into a degree that I can use going forward."

Except it takes four years for most players to earn a bachelor's degree. Only got three years of eligibility? Whoops, that's not going to work.

Christian Folin certainly didn't have any NHL expectations when he arrived at Lowell - or if he did, few else did. He's the exception, not the rule - and yet, he's also a perfect example of what makes college attractive for older players - keep the dream alive while gaining an education that would serve as a perfect alternative to playing hockey, especially since even the most star-struck prospect knows that not everyone's going to get to play in the NHL.

It's college hockey, Don, not hockey college. Lucia doesn't hesitate in the slightest to recruit a kid he knows is never going to graduate, so one can probably excuse him for not knowing the difference.