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

Tipsy McStagger
12-01-2015, 12:17 PM
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?
So wait, how is it better for the players if the window narrows?

Shirtless Guy
12-01-2015, 01:24 PM
So wait, how is it better for the players if the window narrows?

What do you want me to say? I think I laid it out there pretty clear. Why do you think the current system is better for the players? I'm talking about all players, not just the ones that get a spot on a D1 team and trying to be honest with myself about what this really means.

Bale
12-01-2015, 01:50 PM
What do you want me to say? I think I laid it out there pretty clear. Why do you think the current system is better for the players? I'm talking about all players, not just the ones that get a spot on a D1 team and trying to be honest with myself about what this really means.

I guess this just gets back to, who does it benefit. Assume it goes through, are coaches going to still recruit those older kids that only have 3 years of eligibility? If they do, what happens to them until they finish their degree? Do they pay for it themselves? Or is this where full cost of attendance comes in? Remember, especially in smaller schools they have a pretty hard budget and that might not be realistic. Which leads to the other option. Do they get recruited at all? If they don't, who takes their spot? A younger kid that presumably has even less chance to succeed and is even less ready to compete at the college level?

Maybe the better question in this is, who does this help? It's not who does it hurt? Again, let's keep the schools out of it. Let's just focus on the kids. Is it helps g anyone or is it just shifting the "winners" and "losers"?

bothman
12-01-2015, 01:55 PM
Would you guys want the government to dictate when you had to retire or would you like to have the choice to retire at 60, 65, 70, 75, etc?

People like having options. 100% better for the players to not have an age requirement.

Shirtless Guy
12-01-2015, 02:06 PM
I guess this just gets back to, who does it benefit. Assume it goes through, are coaches going to still recruit those older kids that only have 3 years of eligibility? If they do, what happens to them until they finish their degree? Do they pay for it themselves? Or is this where full cost of attendance comes in? Remember, especially in smaller schools they have a pretty hard budget and that might not be realistic. Which leads to the other option. Do they get recruited at all? If they don't, who takes their spot? A younger kid that presumably has even less chance to succeed and is even less ready to compete at the college level?

Maybe the better question in this is, who does this help? It's not who does it hurt? Again, let's keep the schools out of it. Let's just focus on the kids. Is it helps g anyone or is it just shifting the "winners" and "losers"?

Again, if we could get honest answers from schools/players, I highly doubt most of these 21-yos aren't paying a significant portion of the costs for their schooling anyway because hockey only has 18 scholarships and most of these guys aren't top-18. I think the point of this legislation is to push those 21-yos to join school as 20-yos.

dxmnkd316
12-01-2015, 02:12 PM
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.

Bingo. But that's because (at least) half don't offer scholarships at all. The Ivies as I understand it.

EDIT I see this was answered above.

Toe Blake
12-01-2015, 02:19 PM
Lucia and the Big Ten need a public relations guy in a big way. I can't imagine anyone worse than the University of Minnesota coach to be the one to propose this due to his conflict of interest. And I can't imagine the process followed could have been worse. Did they not see how bad it looks? Having said that, every response from a coach that I have seen is self serving and turf protecting. Same for the responses of fans. As far as I can tell, no one is looking at this from the student/athlete and parent perspective. How many 18 year olds who have college hockey aspirations really want to wait two years to get to the show? How many (rational) parents want their kids to actually move away from home to focus on hockey rather than academics or some other training that will make them productive adults? The problem with college hockey is not age, it's the unique and profitable business of the junior leagues. No other college sport needs a group of leagues to allow kids to "mature and develop". Clearly some kids develop later than others. That's why some kids don't make high school teams as well. Too bad, but that's life. The trickle down impact to D3 is evident. It's ridiculous that the vast majority of D3 rosters are made up of kids who played 1-2 years of junior hockey prior to college. None of these kids will make it to the next level, but they force hockey kids who are serious about academics to wait two years to begin college or to quit hockey. The rule does not really have the impact for the controversy it is creating. I would propose something far more impactful for the student athletes and parents. Treat junior hockey the same as junior college. If you play two years, you have used up two years of eligibility. It seems to work fine for basketball and football. Knowing that junior hockey is engrained in hockey culture, I realize this is never going to happen.......but maybe the discussion can move away from those whose career and profits are impacted, and switch to the participants and families.

Bale
12-01-2015, 02:23 PM
Again, if we could get honest answers from schools/players, I highly doubt most of these 21-yos aren't paying a significant portion of the costs for their schooling anyway because hockey only has 18 scholarships and most of these guys aren't top-18. I think the point of this legislation is to push those 21-yos to join school as 20-yos.

That may be the intent, but is that the actual result? I'm not so sure it is. It does add another layer though, is your assumption correct on how much is being paid for? For that matter I question whether the 20 yo is ready to play or are they being forced into a position in which they are unable to prosper. If we're being honest, you're right a lot of them don't pan out, but of those that do, how many of them come to age in their junior year and how many do in their senior year?

To me this reeks of legislating for the sake of legislating. It doesn't seem like this really benefits anyone.

St. Clown
12-01-2015, 02:54 PM
Lucia and the Big Ten need a public relations guy in a big way. I can't imagine anyone worse than the University of Minnesota coach to be the one to propose this due to his conflict of interest. And I can't imagine the process followed could have been worse. Did they not see how bad it looks? Having said that, every response from a coach that I have seen is self serving and turf protecting. Same for the responses of fans. As far as I can tell, no one is looking at this from the student/athlete and parent perspective. How many 18 year olds who have college hockey aspirations really want to wait two years to get to the show? How many (rational) parents want their kids to actually move away from home to focus on hockey rather than academics or some other training that will make them productive adults? The problem with college hockey is not age, it's the unique and profitable business of the junior leagues. No other college sport needs a group of leagues to allow kids to "mature and develop". Clearly some kids develop later than others. That's why some kids don't make high school teams as well. Too bad, but that's life. The trickle down impact to D3 is evident. It's ridiculous that the vast majority of D3 rosters are made up of kids who played 1-2 years of junior hockey prior to college. None of these kids will make it to the next level, but they force hockey kids who are serious about academics to wait two years to begin college or to quit hockey. The rule does not really have the impact for the controversy it is creating. I would propose something far more impactful for the student athletes and parents. Treat junior hockey the same as junior college. If you play two years, you have used up two years of eligibility. It seems to work fine for basketball and football. Knowing that junior hockey is engrained in hockey culture, I realize this is never going to happen.......but maybe the discussion can move away from those whose career and profits are impacted, and switch to the participants and families.

Knowing that the average student who enters college after time off from high school perform better than the average student who enters college directly from high school, it wouldn't bother me in the least. I would even suggest it if I didn't think the kid could make it to the pros but could still play on a college team. A few (very few) even take some online/correspondence courses while playing in the juniors so they have an easier time graduating college while at school playing for the team. Drew LeBlanc was working on his master's degree when he won the Hobey.

Scarlet
12-01-2015, 02:55 PM
As I think I posted before - I see two issues:

1. The actual idea of age limitation, is it needed, etc. I don't like it but I do understand it as an issue. I don't understand it enough to comment on it with any authority.
2. The fact that B1G chose to bring this to the NCAA outside of the rest of college hockey, knowing they are a power conference, knowing their vote is weighed 4x over other, etc. What if schools like B1G schools were doing this and schools like Union weren't able to get these guys and wanted to institute a change? They could not possibly do something like this. It does seem that after Union beat MN for the national championship this year that it started the process. And that's a shame. Because one of the coolest things about college hockey is that a team like a Union can beat a team like a University of Minnesota on the grandest of stages. It looks bad. It looks like they knew that if they went through all of college hockey to start a discussion, they would get shot down so this way, they don't have to worry about it. I don't like that.

FreshFish
12-01-2015, 03:02 PM
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.

That's not quite true, though it's pretty close, because of the availability of paid work. It's not quite as bad as the star college football player getting a sales job at the local auto dealer/head of booster club during the offseason, but there are (legal, legitimate) ways for the schools to get money to athletes that isn't based solely on "need" and technically is not a scholarship either.


They may have beefed up the supervision lately, but in the past, one easy way to get money to an athlete not based on need was to have a host family invite him/her to live in their home, rent-free.

TimU
12-01-2015, 03:09 PM
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.

True.



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.

I agree here too, although THIS is actually the part of the interview where I though Lucia was the most disingenuous (on the issue of trying to tilt the scales in his favor because he runs one of the programs that can and does recruit from the smaller pool of one-and-done talent). How do we know whether we'll have these guys for one, two, or four years? Oh please. Not only does he know that his 18-year-old first-rounders aren't going to last more than a year in the NCAA (and good for them, by the way), but I would be shocked if part of Lucia's recruiting pitch doesn't go something like "I can put you on the fast track to the NHL, and you can win a national championship before you go."

Toe Blake
12-01-2015, 03:23 PM
Knowing that the average student who enters college after time off from high school perform better than the average student who enters college directly from high school, it wouldn't bother me in the least. I would even suggest it if I didn't think the kid could make it to the pros but could still play on a college team. A few (very few) even take some online/correspondence courses while playing in the juniors so they have an easier time graduating college while at school playing for the team. Drew LeBlanc was working on his master's degree when he won the Hobey.



Not sure what your source for this is but for the sake of discussion I'll assume it's accurate on the academics. How about a junior leaving his high school, moving to another town, and going to a new high school just because a college coach who has given him a worthless commitment tells him he needs to develop in juniors? I'm glad my kid is not an elite player because I know I wouldn't want him to cut his high school experience short. And I only get him for 18 years, so I wouldn't want to miss the senior year for the sake of a potential college hockey experience. But that is the position many kids / parents are forced into with the current system. From families I know, it's a very difficult decision that impacts the family significantly and carries high risk. And, for every kid who gets that chance to play D1 due to his junior experience, know that there are literally hundreds forced out of the D3 experience due to the junior kids who don't make it to the D1 level. My point is this system is not ideal for the participants and their families. But it is profitable for the junior leagues.

St. Clown
12-01-2015, 03:26 PM
Not sure what your source for this is but for the sake of discussion I'll assume it's accurate on the academics. How about a junior leaving his high school, moving to another town, and going to a new high school just because a college coach who has given him a worthless commitment tells him he needs to develop in juniors? I'm glad my kid is not an elite player because I know I wouldn't want him to cut his high school experience short. And I only get him for 18 years, so I wouldn't want to miss the senior year for the sake of a potential college hockey experience. But that is the position many kids / parents are forced into with the current system. From families I know, it's a very difficult decision that impacts the family significantly and carries high risk. And, for every kid who gets that chance to play D1 due to his junior experience, know that there are literally hundreds forced out of the D3 experience due to the junior kids who don't make it to the D1 level. My point is this system is not ideal for the participants and their families. But it is profitable for the junior leagues.

Leaving school early for hockey is a non-starter for me. Academics before sport.

Shirtless Guy
12-01-2015, 03:29 PM
Not sure what your source for this is but for the sake of discussion I'll assume it's accurate on the academics. How about a junior leaving his high school, moving to another town, and going to a new high school just because a college coach who has given him a worthless commitment tells him he needs to develop in juniors? I'm glad my kid is not an elite player because I know I wouldn't want him to cut his high school experience short. And I only get him for 18 years, so I wouldn't want to miss the senior year for the sake of a potential college hockey experience. But that is the position many kids / parents are forced into with the current system. From families I know, it's a very difficult decision that impacts the family significantly and carries high risk. And, for every kid who gets that chance to play D1 due to his junior experience, know that there are literally hundreds forced out of the D3 experience due to the junior kids who don't make it to the D1 level. My point is this system is not ideal for the participants and their families. But it is profitable for the junior leagues.

Maybe USHL/NAHL, others should start offering college cost $ like MJ has started to allow participants get money towards college after they leave?

joecct
12-01-2015, 03:33 PM
Leaving school early for hockey is a non-starter for me. Academics before sport.

If you're a genius chemical engineer and Dow wanted you to start working for them full time after your sophomore year, would you say no?

St. Clown
12-01-2015, 03:44 PM
If you're a genius chemical engineer and Dow wanted you to start working for them full time after your sophomore year, would you say no?

No, but that's an apples-and-oranges argument you're making. If the kid's in high school, I'm still the parent who has the authority to say he's not leaving school to play hockey. If my child were in his/her sophomore year of college, the child would be the adult and can make its own decision.

Also, college hockey and the juniors are not offering a career or high-paying job. They're offering a chance to pursue a game at an amateur level where only a small portion of the people playing ever go on to the pros and make money actually playing it.

Add to that, if the child is so brilliant as to be pursued by large companies before graduation, then the child can make up its own mind as to whether or not to pursue a degree while off the clock.

Toe Blake
12-01-2015, 03:48 PM
Leaving school early for hockey is a non-starter for me. Academics before sport.

In my opinion, this is only slightly different from leaving school for two years to play hockey before returning to school. You can always find examples where the system worked well for a kid, but in my opinion, overall the impact is negative for most hockey families. If it was really a good thing for the student athlete and family, we would see similar systems in other sports.

Interestingly, this is not a new issue. It actually goes back to the Denver - Minnesota rivalry between John Mariucci and Murray Armstrong. Mariucci had a roster full of baby faced kids from Minnesota high schools. Armstrong had a roster of 22-26 year old Canadian men who had Canadian junior experience but washed out of any professional career. Mariucci refused to play Denver even though they were in the same league. Not exactly the same issue as today, but similar philosophical differences. I guess you could say both sides benefited. Denver won multiple national championships with Armstrong's commitment to the "mature" Canadians. Mariucci's commitment to Minnesota high school kids eventually resulted in the growth of high school hockey (and community based youth hockey) to the point where Minnesota kids get more college scholarships than any other state. I guess I fall on the side of Mariucci in that his commitment was more in the spirit of college student athletes.

The Exiled One
12-01-2015, 03:49 PM
My opinion on the proposal itself is that it is unnecessary. We have an age restriction rule and it works fine as is. There's a reason why you don't see 22 year-old freshman. Why worry about making kids play 3 years of juniors versus 2 years of juniors versus 1 year of juniors? It is what it is and I don't see an overly compelling reason to change it. On its own merits it just feels very arbitrary. In context it feels somewhat sinister.

Ralph Baer
12-01-2015, 03:53 PM
In context it feels somewhat sinister. Of course it is sinister. It was started by Don Lucifer. ;)