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
12-01-2015, 11:26 PM
Yes, I realize that most kids who play juniors, do so after high school. For the majority who play after high school, I am skeptical that a one or two year gap between high school and college makes for better college students. My main point is that the junior system is not an ideal system for the kids and their families of those aspiring to play college hockey. If it was, other sports would follow the model.This model is followed because of the costs associated with hockey and the lack of interest/accessibility to the sport at the high school level throughout much of the country and the mimic of the canadian model where school/sports aren't really together.

Soccer is going more in this direction with Academies instead of high school

Basketball has AAU.

The big thing to remember is that different sports have different points of maturity.

Shirtless Guy
12-01-2015, 11:32 PM
aau?

yes, thanks...corrected

Shirtless Guy
12-02-2015, 11:11 AM
So I killed the thread?

Ralph Baer
12-02-2015, 11:19 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/chnews">@chnews</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/CHN_AdamWodon">@CHN_AdamWodon</a> is on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SlapSchotts?src=hash">#SlapSchotts</a> Thursday to talk <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/B1GHockey?src=hash">#B1GHockey</a> recruiting proposal. <a href="https://t.co/ErEhnJRTnn">https://t.co/ErEhnJRTnn</a> <a href="https://t.co/iHe7dOKfli">pic.twitter.com/iHe7dOKfli</a></p>&mdash; Ken Schott (@slapschotts) <a href="https://twitter.com/slapschotts/status/672086306646806528">December 2, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Red Cloud
12-02-2015, 11:49 AM
This article makes a big deal of Union's NC win on the backs of older players and calls it "the great equalizer". Great. Except that as far as I can tell, none of Union's players on that team would have been ineligible under the proposed rule.

It also specifically touts Jesse Root at Yale and Union's Matt Bodie as exactly the kind of players the evil B1G is trying prevent other teams from getting. Root played one year of juniors after HS and Bodie played two. Both just fine eligibility wise.

Completely missing the point here. Root and Bodie aren't the stereotypical "blue chip prospects," but they were clear leaders on teams of older players getting to the national championship - and more to the point, they were guys who stayed into their upperclass years while being strong contributors from the get. These guys are being overlooked by the Wisconsins of the world because they weren't high-class prospects at an age where they still thought shooting spitballs at the science teacher was funny.

And if you think this legislation won't impact the way 19 and 20 year olds are recruited, I have a bridge to sell you.

FlagDUDE08
12-02-2015, 11:56 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/chnews">@chnews</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/CHN_AdamWodon">@CHN_AdamWodon</a> is on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SlapSchotts?src=hash">#SlapSchotts</a> Thursday to talk <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/B1GHockey?src=hash">#B1GHockey</a> recruiting proposal. <a href="https://t.co/ErEhnJRTnn">https://t.co/ErEhnJRTnn</a> <a href="https://t.co/iHe7dOKfli">pic.twitter.com/iHe7dOKfli</a></p> Ken Schott (@slapschotts) <a href="https://twitter.com/slapschotts/status/672086306646806528">December 2, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

To those who would like to listen, whether live or in an archived format a little time after it broadcasts live, you can find it here: http://www.foxsports980.com/onair/rodger-wyland-1777/

Dutchman
12-02-2015, 01:46 PM
The American Freshman: Forty Year Trends
http://heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/40TrendsManuscript.pdf
This report is 10 years old but makes the point ...

In 1967, 80.5 percent of entering first-year students was 18 years old, while only 13.7 percent was 19 and older. By 2006, 68.5 percent of entering students was 18, while the percentage of students 19 and older more than doubled to 29.6 percent.

Currently, the average age of all freshmen at all American Colleges and Universities is 19. There are several forces at work which will continue to drive this trend higher.

Many ECAC recruits head for elite N.E. prep schools after public/private high school and their hockey programs as a way to strengthen ice and academic skills. +1 Add one additional year of Jr's to a post-graduate year and bingo .... you're a 21-year-old freshmen.

50% of all students entering College this year will not graduate in 6 years. Most of those will never get any college degree of any sort. The average reading skill of those entering all colleges this year is 7th grade.

We are all proud of the phenomenal young men (and women) who comprise our teams and we know how much they and their families sacrifice to get them to this level where they can get both an excellent education while playing the sport they love. Many of their academic achievements also make us proud. It would be a real shame if some self-serving coaches (BIG10) and an organization that always puts student athletes interest last (NCAA) messes things up.

Toe Blake
12-02-2015, 01:58 PM
This model is followed because of the costs associated with hockey and the lack of interest/accessibility to the sport at the high school level throughout much of the country and the mimic of the canadian model where school/sports aren't really together.

Soccer is going more in this direction with Academies instead of high school

Basketball has AAU.

The big thing to remember is that different sports have different points of maturity.

There is plenty of hockey all over the country for high school age and younger. Even in the non traditional hockey areas. Where do you think the junior leagues get their players? They are not creating new players. They just use kids who played somewhere previously. That does not explain why an additional developmental league it is needed after high school, nor does the expense associated with the sport. Juniors just add expense before college.

Soccer academies are not after high school, so not apples to apples with hockey junior leagues. Basically same as a school like Shattuck.

AAU is an off-season development league, and again, it does not delay a player from going to college after high school graduation and participating in college ball. No different than AAA off season hockey.

Players in different sports mature physically and mentally at a different rate? That's just BS.

There is nothing comparable to the junior leagues in any other college sport. And if they were really beneficial to the kids / families pursuing college sports, they would exist in other sports.

Lucia is protecting his turf/career, non traditional hockey college coaches are protecting their turf/careers, and junior leagues are in this for the profit. No one is concerned with the best outcome for kids/families pursuing the college hockey experience.

Shirtless Guy
12-02-2015, 02:06 PM
There is plenty of hockey all over the country for high school age and younger. Even in the non traditional hockey areas. Where do you think the junior leagues get their players? They are not creating new players. They just use kids who played somewhere previously. That does not explain why an additional developmental league it is needed after high school, nor does the expense associated with the sport. Juniors just add expense before college.

Soccer academies are not after high school, so not apples to apples with hockey junior leagues. Basically same as a school like Shattuck.

AAU is an off-season development league, and again, it does not delay a player from going to college after high school graduation and participating in college ball. No different than AAA off season hockey.

Players in different sports mature physically and mentally at a different rate? That's just BS.

There is nothing comparable to the junior leagues in any other college sport. And if they were really beneficial to the kids / families pursuing college sports, they would exist in other sports.

Lucia is protecting his turf/career, non traditional hockey college coaches are protecting their turf/careers, and junior leagues are in this for the profit. No one is concerned with the best outcome for kids/families pursuing the college hockey experience.

My point was that High School hockey is not much of a thing in many places so there are AAA Midget teams and U18 teams throughout the country. Those are really just pre-junior league teams. It is certainly growing in places like Wisconsin but for example there was no high school team at my high school until my senior year, before that, kids played for an area team that was more a Midget AAA team.

NOTHING is apples to apples with hockey, but there is nothing really apples to apples with soccer academies or AAU basketball. Everything is a little different, especially when you start talking about big time players. I'm sure ALOT of it has to do with copying the Canadian model and trying to prepare US players for the level of player they'll face because 19, 20 and 21 yo freshman from Canada were allowed to play along side them.

The shift in numbers of players leaving early with the change in the NHL CBA has also caused issues of over recruiting to protect for early departures and then deferring kids if early departures don't happen.
The professional draft situation is also unique, with college hockey being the only place where players can have rights owned by an NHL team while the play.

SCSU Euro
12-02-2015, 02:27 PM
There is nothing comparable to the junior leagues in any other college sport. And if they were really beneficial to the kids / families pursuing college sports, they would exist in other sports.

You've said this like three times and I kept quiet the first two but this simply is terrible logic. Hockey is a different animal, and we all like to make nice, simple comparisons, but I think its really difficult to compare it to any of the other youth sports.

And junior hockey is not some evil empire like you're making it out to be. I've had a lot of experience working with people who have played or are playing junior hockey and sure there are things that they feel could be improved, just like anything, but overall the players AND parents have positive things to say about junior hockey.

Toe Blake
12-02-2015, 02:27 PM
My point was that High School hockey is not much of a thing in many places so there are AAA Midget teams and U18 teams throughout the country. Those are really just pre-junior league teams. It is certainly growing in places like Wisconsin but for example there was no high school team at my high school until my senior year, before that, kids played for an area team that was more a Midget AAA team.

NOTHING is apples to apples with hockey, but there is nothing really apples to apples with soccer academies or AAU basketball. Everything is a little different, especially when you start talking about big time players. I'm sure ALOT of it has to do with copying the Canadian model and trying to prepare US players for the level of player they'll face because 19, 20 and 21 yo freshman from Canada were allowed to play along side them.

The shift in numbers of players leaving early with the change in the NHL CBA has also caused issues of over recruiting to protect for early departures and then deferring kids if early departures don't happen.
The professional draft situation is also unique, with college hockey being the only place where players can have rights owned by an NHL team while the play.

None of which addresses my point. Which is: junior leagues do not make it easier, less expensive, or better for hockey kids/families seeking the student/athlete experience. They do create profits for themselves. As long as they exist and do not count against college eligibility, college coaches will utilize them. If they didn't exist, college hockey would adjust and be just fine like every other college sport. And this would be better for the student athlete whom college sports are supposed to be for. Elite players who have higher aspirations have other options like major junior where they can also get college funding if/when they wash out.

Shirtless Guy
12-02-2015, 02:43 PM
None of which addresses my point. Which is: junior leagues do not make it easier, less expensive, or better for hockey kids/families seeking the student/athlete experience. They do create profits for themselves. As long as they exist and do not count against college eligibility, college coaches will utilize them. If they didn't exist, college hockey would adjust and be just fine like every other college sport. And this would be better for the student athlete whom college sports are supposed to be for. Elite players who have higher aspirations have other options like major junior where they can also get college funding if/when they wash out.

As long as there are Junior A leagues in Canada and Colleges can have players that are 19,20, and/or 21 year-old freshmen, America will need something similar to prepare their players. Sorry, I think you're just wrong on this. Are there examples of kids getting strung along and ruining certain experiences? Sure, but we shouldn't do anything to prevent the exception.

mookie1995
12-02-2015, 02:59 PM
How about if tDon follows the football model and we expand hockey scholarships to 80 with redshirt freshmen?

(Football also has players do post grad hs football before college. ***-for-tat)

Shirtless Guy
12-02-2015, 03:03 PM
How about if tDon follows the football model and we expand hockey scholarships to 80 with redshirt freshmen?

(Football also has players do post grad hs football before college. ***-for-tat)

I honestly do think college hockey should expand scholarships.

mookie1995
12-02-2015, 03:13 PM
I honestly do think college hockey should expand scholarships.

No way to explain it now.

Football plays 22 and has 4x that
Hockey plays 19 and has 18 total.

That right there is your problem in a nutshell

Toe Blake
12-02-2015, 03:20 PM
As long as there are Junior A leagues in Canada and Colleges can have players that are 19,20, and/or 21 year-old freshmen, America will need something similar to prepare their players. Sorry, I think you're just wrong on this. Are there examples of kids getting strung along and ruining certain experiences? Sure, but we shouldn't do anything to prevent the exception.

I think you are confusing what is best for USA hockey and what is best for kids/families who are pursuing college athletics. My point again....somebody start looking at this from the student athlete and family perspective...... How is the junior system better for them? I think I am right on this. If you polled prospective hockey recruits and parents and they were asked if they would prefer to start their college career at 18 or 20, which do you think the majority would choose? I know families with kids who have been or are being recruited. None were or are excited about junior hockey as part of the deal. They are forced to accept it. This whole debate is not about the actual participants. They are merely pawns. Any legislation should focus on their outcome....not USA hockey, Don Lucia, Union's program, or the NHL.

FlagDUDE08
12-02-2015, 03:37 PM
I think you are confusing what is best for USA hockey and what is best for kids/families who are pursuing college athletics. My point again....somebody start looking at this from the student athlete and family perspective...... How is the junior system better for them? I think I am right on this. If you polled prospective hockey recruits and parents and they were asked if they would prefer to start their college career at 18 or 20, which do you think the majority would choose? I know families with kids who have been or are being recruited. None were or are excited about junior hockey as part of the deal. They are forced to accept it. This whole debate is not about the actual participants. They are merely pawns. Any legislation should focus on their outcome....not USA hockey, Don Lucia, Union's program, or the NHL.

Junior hockey, even Tier 2, is quite the step even from Minnesota high school hockey. This is something RPI has found, given some of their players are coming directly from HS hockey, while others come from junior leagues. The step up is quite a large one if you're going from HS to college, and juniors gives you that one extra step of higher experience that helps your game. HS players tend to struggle at first.

Also, there's one other thing to remember, and that's that junior leagues have tutoring during the week for their players, especially in the USHL. Education is still very important in the system, it's not just all play all day.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-02-2015, 03:41 PM
Completely missing the point here. Root and Bodie aren't the stereotypical "blue chip prospects," but they were clear leaders on teams of older players getting to the national championship - and more to the point, they were guys who stayed into their upperclass years while being strong contributors from the get. These guys are being overlooked by the Wisconsins of the world because they weren't high-class prospects at an age where they still thought shooting spitballs at the science teacher was funny.

And if you think this legislation won't impact the way 19 and 20 year olds are recruited, I have a bridge to sell you.

The first half of the article "A Rigged Game" endeavors to make the point that the B1G is proposing this rule specifically because it will stop the "small guys" of the world from gaining a competitive advantage by using older players. To support the premise the author points to Union's NC win. The reader is certainly to infer that this proposal would put a stop to a team like Union having the older players it had. That is not true.

For for further support the author points to Mat Bodie and Jesse Root, again inferring they would somehow have been affected by this rule. That is not true. And if the author didn't mean to infer a relationship between this proposal and Union and those players, why in the world use them as examples?

As for Bodie and Root. Let's not pretend these guys were some sort of projects that just got a shot late in their careers and panned out through luck and hard work. Bodie was Coastal league ROY at 18 and was one of the top D in Western Canada at 19. Member of the Canada West World Junior A team. Captain of the Powell River Kings that he led to the finals as the leading scorer in the playoffs. A ton of schools would have wanted him but he followed his brother to Union. Root won a State Championship in Pennsylvania, was the leading scorer of his elite Taft School team, was an academic all star and one of the best LaX players in New England. He led the Jr. Bruins to the semi finals his one year of Junior Hockey with 44 in 41gp. Root was a terrific athlete, a very good hockey player, and very smart. He certainly had other options besides Yale at 19. Neither of these guys took until 21 to be NCAA ready, and the proposed rule would have done absolutely nothing to recruiting either of them. There may very well be useful examples to the author's point. These guys aren't it, though.

I agree that 19-20 year old recruiting would be affected. Primarily I would guess that a decision will have to be made earlier on borderline players, rather than waiting around another year. Some guys that wouldn't have got a shot, will, and some guys that would have got a shot, won't, I would imagine. (Again, Root and Bodie were not borderline players.)

As for UW, before last year's disaster year they had a #1 seed team with 9 Seniors very similar in make-up to guys like Root and Bodie. (Two late round draft picks in the group, the rest free agents. Seven are playing pro hockey today.) UW recruits guys just like this. Of course they also bring in super elite kids, and two 2nd round draft picks also departed early.

I am interested in the bridge, though. Provided it's in good condition and the price is reasonable.

manurespreader
12-02-2015, 03:47 PM
I think you are confusing what is best for USA hockey and what is best for kids/families who are pursuing college athletics. My point again....somebody start looking at this from the student athlete and family perspective...... How is the junior system better for them? I think I am right on this. If you polled prospective hockey recruits and parents and they were asked if they would prefer to start their college career at 18 or 20, which do you think the majority would choose? I know families with kids who have been or are being recruited. None were or are excited about junior hockey as part of the deal. They are forced to accept it. This whole debate is not about the actual participants. They are merely pawns. Any legislation should focus on their outcome....not USA hockey, Don Lucia, Union's program, or the NHL.
Your whole premise here is that the additional year is bad for students, but that's not true. Really it depends on the kid. It's not bad for some students, it might be bad for others..But to say the whole system in rigged against them.... no.

MaizeRage
12-02-2015, 03:48 PM
No way to explain it now.

Football plays 22 and has 4x that
Hockey plays 19 and has 18 total.

That right there is your problem in a nutshell

If football plays 22, then hockey only plays 5. Seems like those numbers work out.