New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

[Ralph Baer]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

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.

Maybe Minnesota is still ****ed from their loss to RPI in the 1954 NCAA championship game.

[Patronick]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

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

At this point you're just being thick. Goodbye.

[SteveO]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

At this point you're just being thick. Goodbye.

I've been very clear, you quoted wrong. Take care.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

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.

Seriously. For the first time I can remember, I'm embarrassed by our coach.

[Stauber1]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Seriously. For the first time I can remember, I'm embarrassed by our coach.

I'm embarrassed for you if you think what St. Clown quoted is anything resembling what Lucia actually said, or was even talking about.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Meh, either way. With or without that quote, it's still embarrassing. "Big schools can't win with the given rules, so we're going to change them."

This rule won't mean a lot but it's the first in what is likely a long stream of changes to shift power back to those who used to have a monopoly on it.

[Stauber1]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Meh, either way. With or without that quote, it's still embarrassing. "Big schools can't win with the given rules, so we're going to change them."

This rule won't mean a lot but it's the first in what is likely a long stream of changes to shift power back to those who used to have a monopoly on it.

While the second part of your statement may well prove to be true, the first part just has no basis in reality.

At least today. We'll see what tomorrow, and the next Big 10 proposed legislation, brings.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

No basis in reality? Then what is the point of it?

[Stauber1]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

No basis in reality? Then what is the point of 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.

If you go back and read the thread, there is plenty of raw data showing the schools who rely on 21-year-old freshman recruits are teams that are already in the bottom-tier of hockey. Teams that compete on the national level, even the small ones, even the small ones with older average ages, really do not have more than 1-5 guys who would be affected by this proposal. The only one that could be considered is Mankato.

EDIT: I'd note, that in my research, a pretty high percentage of those 1-5 are guys who are routinely scratched or leave college hockey early. Almost all of the rest are classic "role players" (based on pt. production for forwards). Of course there are a few exceptions to the rule.

[Almington]

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.

All the play-up schools knew the rules once the NCAA broke into divisions that if they wanted a vote they had to play in their primary division. By deciding to play-up but not move the full athletic department up, the schools were agreeing to those rules, regardless of the fairness of those rules all 22 of the play-up schools knew that they didn't have a direct vote when they made the decision to play at the D1 level.

That doesn't change the fact that the way this was done makes the Big Ten look like a bunch of spoiled petulant babies, but the rules didn't suddenly change in the play-up schools. How the rules are being UTILIZED may have changed, but the rules themselves are the same as they were long before this age-limit change was proposed.

[giwan]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

That doesn't change the fact that the way this was done makes the Big Ten look like a bunch of spoiled petulant babies, but the rules didn't suddenly change in the play-up schools. How the rules are being UTILIZED may have changed, but the rules themselves are the same as they were long before this age-limit change was proposed.

Oh no, they are.

[davyd83]

All the play-up schools knew the rules once the NCAA broke into divisions that if they wanted a vote they had to play in their primary division. By deciding to play-up but not move the full athletic department up, the schools were agreeing to those rules, regardless of the fairness of those rules all 22 of the play-up schools knew that they didn't have a direct vote when they made the decision to play at the D1 level.

That doesn't change the fact that the way this was done makes the Big Ten look like a bunch of spoiled petulant babies, but the rules didn't suddenly change in the play-up schools. How the rules are being UTILIZED may have changed, but the rules themselves are the same as they were long before this age-limit change was proposed.

Since there is no D-2 Championship, and you can't play down to D3, the options are pretty limited, aren't they. Just bend over & smile.

[Almington]

Since there is no D-2 Championship, and you can't play down to D3, the options are pretty limited, aren't they. Just bend over & smile.

No D2 championship exists because (nearly) all the D2 schools are playing up. I'm sure that if they wanted they could form a very nice D2 eastern and western leagues and get a NCAA championship where they get to make the rules.

Each and everyone of these schools knew that they would have no direct vote in any matter before the D1 board when they decided to play-up (regardless of if the decision was forced upon them or not). This is not a surprise. These teams are effectively guests at the D1 level. It is no different than buying a vacation home in a neighboring state and then complaining that you don't get to vote in that state. You knew that was the trade-off that you were making when you made the decision to buy in another state.

[Ralph Baer]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

No D2 championship exists because (nearly) all the D2 schools are playing up. I'm sure that if they wanted they could form a very nice D2 eastern and western leagues and get a NCAA championship where they get to make the rules.

Each and everyone of these schools knew that they would have no direct vote in any matter before the D1 board when they decided to play-up (regardless of if the decision was forced upon them or not). This is not a surprise. These teams are effectively guests at the D1 level. It is no different than buying a vacation home in a neighboring state and then complaining that you don't get to vote in that state. You knew that was the trade-off that you were making when you made the decision to buy in another state.

The Big 10 schools needed the non-DI schools also. When I started college, the WCHA had seven members, three Big Ten schools (Michigan, Minnesota, and MSU) and four play-up schools (MTU, North Dakota, Denver, and CC). Duluth became the eighth member and fifth play-up while I was still an undergrad. Perhaps they should have stayed a three-team league. The Big Ten schools needed the play-ups, and the present state of their league shows that they still do, only they are too greedy to admit it.

BTW, years ago on USCHO I posted on several occasions that there is something weird about freshmen entering college who are older than I was when I graduated (about 20 years and 5 months). Other posters at the time disagreed with this pointing out that age discrimination is illegal. (And others said that the problem was with me being 16 when I entered college. ) I hemmed and hawed and said that makes sense but it still bothered me. Nothing has really changed over the years.

[Jimjamesak]

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.

I hope your spine is ok bending over that far backwards to defend Lucia and Minnesota.

These aren't "conspiracy theories", they're pretty well thought out hypotheses.