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

joecct
11-24-2015, 11:32 AM
How soon before the D3s are kicked out of D1?

goldy_331
11-24-2015, 11:33 AM
Then pay the employees.

They're getting paid, just not in cash.

First Time, Long Time
11-24-2015, 11:40 AM
Can't win on the ice, change the rules to suit yourself...not surprised.

Tipsy McStagger
11-24-2015, 12:11 PM
They're getting paid, just not in cash.
Save the semantics lesson for someone else. They aren't getting paid.

St. Clown
11-24-2015, 12:22 PM
Save the semantics lesson for someone else. They aren't getting paid.

It's not a semantics lesson, it's a legal truth. I don't know what the adherence rate to the law is, but when you fill out a 1040 to file your taxes, there's a section about the dollar value of scholarships you've received. Not all players are on scholarship, so not all of them are being paid, but as we know, a number of them are.

J.D.
11-24-2015, 12:25 PM
Full disclosure...I am a BC fan. While I don't particularly love the idea of 21 year old freshmen etc my stance has softened on that over the years. First, Jerry York has had plenty of success nationally while almost always having the youngest or 2nd youngest team in the country. It hasn't prevented BC from winning and winning big. So even if BC voted for this, it makes sense to me that this was started by the Big Ten schools. Wisconsin stinks on ice, Minnesota hasn't won since 2003, Michigan last won in 1998, Michigan State has been an average program the last five years or so.

If you want/need older freshmen, bring it on. It really doesn't bother me that much at all. I may joke about it but I will never use it as an excuse when BC loses. Never.

Tipsy McStagger
11-24-2015, 12:32 PM
It's not a semantics lesson, it's a legal truth. I don't know what the adherence rate to the law is, but when you fill out a 1040 to file your taxes, there's a section about the dollar value of scholarships you've received. Not all players are on scholarship, so not all of them are being paid, but as we know, a number of them are.
Let's not get sidetracked from the topic of this thread, which is that Don Lucia is a crybaby beyotch.

Critical Thinker
11-24-2015, 12:32 PM
Look for FBS schools

B1G
Notre Dame
BC
UConn?
Miami??
BGSU?????????? (this I doubt)

This list plus Western Michigan and Arizona State would be the "big name schools". But I have a hard time believing my school is on board with this. 6 years ago those older guys who saw us as their last chance to play hockey came in and worked their butts off to make this a program that kids now want to be a part of.

goldy_331
11-24-2015, 12:35 PM
Save the semantics lesson for someone else. They aren't getting paid.You view a paid (or mostly paid) college education as nothing? If a guy gets an 80% ride at SCSU and stays 4 years, that's worth about $71K, it ain't nothing, and it ain't semantics.

Nick Papagiorgio
11-24-2015, 12:36 PM
By all means get rid of the overaged Canadian mercs.

I have no idea how Merrimack would field a team without them but I'm sure they'll figure out something.

Bonin21
11-24-2015, 12:37 PM
So much fear

Tipsy McStagger
11-24-2015, 12:48 PM
You view a paid (or mostly paid) college education as nothing? If a guy gets an 80% ride at SCSU and stays 4 years, that's worth about $71K, it ain't nothing, and it ain't semantics.
Keebler doesn't pay its employees in crackers, but if they did at least the employees could turn around and sell the crackers to get what they really want, which is money. Your scenario discounts the fact that the education costs nearly nothing to the school and that the college education may be worthless to the guy.

goldy_331
11-24-2015, 12:56 PM
Keebler doesn't pay its employees in crackers, but if they did at least the employees could turn around and sell the crackers to get what they really want, which is money. Your scenario discounts the fact that the education costs nearly nothing to the school and that the college education may be worthless to the guy.
I do understand that a SCSU education would be worthless, you and your buddies keep demonstrating that on this board. ;-)

KaMiGo
11-24-2015, 12:57 PM
Keebler doesn't pay its employees in crackers, but if they did at least the employees could turn around and sell the crackers to get what they really want, which is money. Your scenario discounts the fact that the education costs nearly nothing to the school and that the college education may be worthless to the guy.

Ok then; how about the free meals, coaching services, training services, medical services, and so on that are provided to an athlete?

schiegs
11-24-2015, 01:04 PM
Save the semantics lesson for someone else. They aren't getting paid.

Tell that to a family that can't afford college for their child.

Nick Papagiorgio
11-24-2015, 01:06 PM
I do understand that a SCSU education would be worthless, you and your buddies keep demonstrating that on this board. ;-)

Ha. Are all St. Cloud people this dumb?

Ronnieb
11-24-2015, 01:16 PM
The NCAA restricts age in all D-1 and D-2 sports. Waivers can be granted, of course, but eligibility begins to be affected the year after your high school class graduates. Hockey and Skiing currently allow for delayed enrollment until after your 21st birthday. In other words, Hockey has an exemption now to 21. Most all other sports don't.

uh, try all BYU sports.

Agganis
11-24-2015, 01:20 PM
Save the semantics lesson for someone else. They aren't getting paid.

They are getting paid, and the academic and athletic package they receive from the school has value.

The issue is that unlike in capitalism they are unable to negotiate up to fair market value as the schools and NCAA have colluded to fix the price below market value for the athletic services of many (not all) of the athletes.

Tipsy McStagger
11-24-2015, 01:24 PM
Ok then; how about the free meals, coaching services, training services, medical services, and so on that are provided to an athlete?
Which one of those doesn't mutually benefit the school? All of those are there to make sure the athlete performs at their best for the benefit of the school. If the athlete was paid, he could pay for those things on his own. If you gave the athlete the choice between the current system, and a system where they had to pay for their own tuition and housing but there would be a free market for his services, no football, baseketball or hockey players would choose the first one. And no school would offer less than the cost of tuition, because it doesn't cost them any extra money to let another person into a classroom to listen to a professor.

If college sports is a business, and people in this country worship capitalism, why are we putting a cap on what a college athlete can make? It should be a free market shouldn't it?

Tipsy McStagger
11-24-2015, 01:28 PM
Tell that to a family that can't afford college for their child.
Find me the family that can't afford college for their child that would be against their child being paid with money instead of getting a scholarship.