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

Toe Blake
12-02-2015, 03:50 PM
[QUOTE=FlagDUDE08;6234515]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.QUOTE]

Not debating that point under the current state of affairs. But that jump would not be so big if hockey was like every other college sport where kids generally come in immediately after high school. Juniors are so much in the fabric of hockey now, that no one seems to consider that college hockey could do quite well without them.

Red Cloud
12-02-2015, 03:53 PM
blah blah blah

All I read is "I have my opinion and I'm going to shoehorn something someone else said to fit my worldview."

Top notch. Dope.

FlagDUDE08
12-02-2015, 03:53 PM
If football plays 22, then hockey only plays 5. Seems like those numbers work out.

Show me a college hockey game where the coach is rolling one line and one line only.

MaizeRage
12-02-2015, 03:56 PM
Show me a college hockey game where the coach is rolling one line and one line only.

Exactly. And the same goes for football.

Shirtless Guy
12-02-2015, 03:58 PM
If football plays 22, then hockey only plays 5. Seems like those numbers work out.

I'm sure that is the assumed problem. What really caused this problem in the first place was college hockey self-imposing a reduction themselves before NCAA reduced scholarships everywhere, which they chose to impose on hockey even though they had already self-imposed a reduction.

Football is 85 scholarships (head count), typical team uses about 35-40 players in a game?
Basketball is 13 scholarships (head count), typical team uses about 8 players in a game?
Hockey is 18 scholarships (equivalency), typical team uses 19 players players in a game?

I see a problem with that.

Shirtless Guy
12-02-2015, 03:59 PM
Not debating that point under the current state of affairs. But that jump would not be so big if hockey was like every other college sport where kids generally come in immediately after high school. Juniors are so much in the fabric of hockey now, that no one seems to consider that college hockey could do quite well without them.

Pretty sure the ship has sailed, so stop beating a dead horse.

Toe Blake
12-02-2015, 04:04 PM
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.

That's not my whole premise. My premise is that the majority of participants don't want to be forced into juniors. Never said it does not work out for some. But when even D3 rosters are mainly older players who were told they must play juniors before they play D3 hockey, there is a problem.

Toe Blake
12-02-2015, 04:05 PM
Pretty sure the ship has sailed, so stop beating a dead horse.

Yep. Nothing to see here. Keep the focus on what's best for everyone but the actual participants. It's working so well for them.

Shirtless Guy
12-02-2015, 04:08 PM
Yep. Nothing to see here. Keep the focus on what's best for everyone but the actual participants. It's working so well for them.

Did donald get a new screen name? Seriously, I have stated that I'm not sure I am opposed to this rule change because I'm not sure anyone should be asked to put of college til they're 21. On the other hand, I'm not sure waiting is a horrible thing for a year or two. I have asked the question about the players who don't get that D1 phone call. Read back...I just think you've taken it to the extreme and the world we live in has Junior A hockey. Americans are competing with Canadians for scholarship $ and that will make it extremely difficult to throw away the current system.

Toe Blake
12-02-2015, 04:24 PM
Did donald get a new screen name? Seriously, I have stated that I'm not sure I am opposed to this rule change because I'm not sure anyone should be asked to put of college til they're 21. On the other hand, I'm not sure waiting is a horrible thing for a year or two. I have asked the question about the players who don't get that D1 phone call. Read back...I just think you've taken it to the extreme and the world we live in has Junior A hockey. Americans are competing with Canadians for scholarship $ and that will make it extremely difficult to throw away the current system.

I don't think it's extreme to expect college hockey to operate like every other college sport with regard to development of recruits. Maybe we can agree on one thing......Any legislation enacted by the NCAA should ultimately be for the benefit of the student athletes.....not any particular coaches, programs, or outside entities.

The Exiled One
12-02-2015, 04:27 PM
I'm not sure I am opposed to this rule change because I'm not sure anyone should be asked to put of college til they're 21.
...or 20, or 19, or 22. Maybe the discussion has been going on behind the scenes for a while, but I'm just not sure why this year, at this time, a small segment of college coaches with a lot of political power suddenly decided to "stand up for recruits" and decide 21 is too old but 20 is not. If it's a problem for recruits (a point not conceded), the problem CAN'T get significantly worse because there's already an age cap on junior eligibility. Therefore, this proposal isn't about maintaining the status quo or reversing a trend, it has to be about reversing an "existing" problem. I have yet to see hard evidence presented that hockey players object to the current system, which can only be derived from the players themselves. Where's the massive outpouring of support for this proposal from the students themselves?

The only hard evidence we've seen so far is from you and I which shows that the large majority of 21 year-old freshmen have committed within a year of enrollment. That evidence is in contradiction to the claim that players are being stockpiled and deferred.

In short, this reeks of a solution looking for a problem.

Shirtless Guy
12-02-2015, 04:33 PM
I don't think it's extreme to expect college hockey to operate like every other college sport with regard to development of recruits. Maybe we can agree on one thing......Any legislation enacted by the NCAA should ultimately be for the benefit of the student athletes.....not any particular coaches, programs, or outside entities.

But no other sport has the aggressive competition for scholarship dollars from another country like hockey. College hockey is unique and has been unique for a long time. Thats ok in my eyes. I don't have a problem having an honest discussion about changing the rules to prevent people from having to wait until they're 21 to give up on a D1 scholarship and move on from Junior Hockey. I think that is a discussion to be had. Completely scrapping junior hockey is a non-starter. It is here to stay, but if we want to talk about changes to rules to help players prepare for college or take courses to help them decide what they want to do with their life after hockey and be able to graduate in 4 years once they get there instead of the 5-6 years alot of students actually take, thats great. You're right to mention that there is money in Junior Hockey and there is nothing wrong with talking about junior teams agreeing to pay for some of the player's college after they move on to college, perhaps subsidizing school scholarships based on years with a junior team. There are plenty of ways to improve this process without scrapping it completely.

St. Clown
12-02-2015, 04:34 PM
I don't think it's extreme to expect college hockey to operate like every other college sport with regard to development of recruits. Maybe we can agree on one thing......Any legislation enacted by the NCAA should ultimately be for the benefit of the student athletes.....not any particular coaches, programs, or outside entities.

Here's part of the problem with the proposed new rule: How the rule is structured. The rule states that a player has two years from the point of leaving high school or lose a year of eligibility. If what people have asserted earlier in this thread is true, that Canadians are generally a year older than Americans when graduating from high school, then this new rule will handicap the American player in favor of even more Canadians flowing into the American collegiate programs.

It's been proven over time that coaches prefer to have some older students on their rosters because as people age, they tend to handle stressful situations better. These skaters might not be better than the younger kids in terms of pure talent, or even physical ability, but they have something coaches want. What else could it be other than maturity, the maturity of handling the stress of playing both for a D1 college team and handling their school coursework?

This rule will lessen the chances for those subprime American collegiate prospects where coaches simply want them to mature. Instead, they'll look to those Canadians who already have that extra year of age due to the differences in school systems. And a kid like me, who graduated high school at 17, I'd be outright hosed by tDon's desires.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-02-2015, 04:37 PM
All I read is "I have my opinion and I'm going to shoehorn something someone else said to fit my worldview."

Top notch. Dope.

My opinion is that the article is poorly researched and/or written. Your opinion appears to have nothing to do with the portion of the article I was referring to, yet, you're telling me I'm completely missing the point. It's certainly true that we can't all be an open minded genius like yourself, but that doesn't mean even my feeble little mind can't occasionally read something and see it contains inaccuracies. Please keep in mind I didn't have the benefit of your wisdom beforehand to tell me which facts were important and which just don't matter. I don't know. I am obviously not smart. Maybe early recruiting and 4 year players are the only issues of importance in this article about legislation addressing eligibility of 3rd year Junior players.

btw- I generally prefer idiot to dope. I'd ask why you changed it but the answer would assuredly be over my head.

Shirtless Guy
12-02-2015, 04:49 PM
...or 20, or 19, or 22. Maybe the discussion has been going on behind the scenes for a while, but I'm just not sure why this year, at this time, a small segment of college coaches with a lot of political power suddenly decided to "stand up for recruits" and decide 21 is too old but 20 is not. If it's a problem for recruits (a point not conceded), the problem CAN'T get significantly worse because there's already an age cap on junior eligibility. Therefore, this proposal isn't about maintaining the status quo or reversing a trend, it has to be about reversing an "existing" problem. I have yet to see hard evidence presented that hockey players object to the current system, which can only be derived from the players themselves. Where's the massive outpouring of support for this proposal from the students themselves?

The only hard evidence we've seen so far is from you and I which shows that the large majority of 21 year-old freshmen have committed within a year of enrollment. That evidence is in contradiction to the claim that players are being stockpiled and deferred.

In short, this reeks of a solution looking for a problem.
I have regularly chatted with a parent of a player that verbally committed awhile ago. The player received is NLI to sign during the November period, it says that he'll come in for 2016-17 but it is quite likely that without early departures he'll get deferred to 2017-18 and be a 21-yo frosh. The kid is all in on the coach and would probably do anything to join whenever the coach needs him, but that Dad has told me point blank that he wants to see his son get on with the next part of his life and I completely understand that. 21 is certainly arbitrary, but that doesn't mean that 20 wouldn't be better for the majority of people. Especially the 20-year-olds in junior hockey that never get that scholarship offer. How do we find them and talk to them?

The whole discussion of why now and why the B1G would do this on their own is completely separate to me. There is no doubt that this has entered our discussion for completely the wrong reasons, but I agree with Toe Blake on one thing. If this rule change makes things better for the junior players, it doesn't really matter if it makes things worse for my team or your team.

Dutchman
12-02-2015, 05:09 PM
Just to set the record straight
Year -- Union College Hockey Av Age
2015-2016 21.21
2014-2015 21.28
2013-2014 21.08
2012-2013 21.26
2011-2012 21.15
2010-2011 21.63
2009-2010 21.81
2008-2009 21.52
2007-2008 21.21
2006-2007 20.85

Bodies Championship team, 2013-2014, was actually the youngest on average going back to 2006-2007.

Critical Thinker
12-02-2015, 05:10 PM
I'm sure that is the assumed problem. What really caused this problem in the first place was college hockey self-imposing a reduction themselves before NCAA reduced scholarships everywhere, which they chose to impose on hockey even though they had already self-imposed a reduction.

Football is 85 scholarships (head count), typical team uses about 35-40 players in a game?
Basketball is 13 scholarships (head count), typical team uses about 8 players in a game?
Hockey is 18 scholarships (equivalency), typical team uses 19 players players in a game?

I see a problem with that.

If my opinion were to ever mean anything, I'd propose a scholarship limit of 75% of each sports' dressed roster, For example:

Hockey: 20 dressed players= 15 scholarships
Baseball: 25 dressed players= 18.75 scholarships
Basketball: 15 dressed players= 11.25 scholarships

Football currently doesn't have a limit of players allowed to dress, so one would have to be set, say, 70-75 players or so. Track & Field might have to be given an arbitrary number, but I think this would work fine for most sports. Of course, the P5 conferences would never accept a limit of 45-50 scholarships for football (or limits of any sort that don't involve age), but this is what I'd like to see.

Shirtless Guy
12-02-2015, 05:13 PM
If my opinion were to ever mean anything, I'd propose a scholarship limit of 75% of each sports' dressed roster, For example:

Hockey: 20 dressed players= 15 scholarships
Baseball: 25 dressed players= 18.75 scholarships
Basketball: 15 dressed players= 11.25 scholarships

Football currently doesn't have a limit of players allowed to dress, so one would have to be set, say, 70-75 players or so. Track & Field might have to be given an arbitrary number, but I think this would work fine for most sports. Of course, the P5 conferences would never accept a limit of 45-50 scholarships for football (or limits of any sort that don't involve age), but this is what I'd like to see.Now why would you say that? Why do you think hockey needs less scholarships?

Wisko McBadgerton
12-02-2015, 05:16 PM
Just as a point of interest, Wisconsin Coach Mike Eaves was asked about this on his Wednesday night show. To paraphrase what he said as I remember it:

They discussed it fairly widely at Naples last April and tabled it. Discussions continued over the summer among B1G coaches. They eventually found general agreement among themselves on the proposal. Expressed concerns about the league continuing to trend older in the future. Also mentioned NHL people have expressed concerns about the the league being too old.

Interestingly, he said he was a bit "taken aback" when he found out the B1G was taking it to legislation. He said he immediately called (asst AD) Jason King and expressed his feeling that they were "missing a step" in not going back to the rest of schools for further input.

SteveO
12-02-2015, 05:20 PM
That's not my whole premise. My premise is that the majority of participants don't want to be forced into juniors. Never said it does not work out for some. But when even D3 rosters are mainly older players who were told they must play juniors before they play D3 hockey, there is a problem.

I tend to agree with your premise. I mentioned previously if a HS senior signs a LOI, he and his parents are anticipating attending college or university asap. As a college faculty member myself, I would also add from an academic perspective that I do see some merit in waiting a year or two while playing juniors as often students entering college directly from HS are often unsure of their academic path and a bit more maturity in understanding what competency level a successful college career requires may be expedient as well.

But in regards to the legislation, I've seen my share of 25 yo undergrad students and they tend to adopt a more serious academic attitude, but I do think it's ok to discuss an age restriction for the college hockey student-athlete given the strength and experience differential between a 25 and 18 yo. I don't share the opinion that this is a Big Ten conspiracy against all of D1 college hockey.