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

Critical Thinker
12-02-2015, 05:26 PM
The point of my hypothetical situation is to make the scholarship level uniform across all sports so we don't see the kind of disparity between hockey funding 18 for 27 players and football funding 85 for 100+ players. The way that works out, hockey has to take less, unless the 75% were to be raised to 90 or 100.

Jimjamesak
12-02-2015, 05:33 PM
Soccer academies are not after high school, so not apples to apples with hockey junior leagues. Basically same as a school like Shattuck.
Not to put too fine a point on it but, you're wrong. US Soccer Development Academies are basically year round training programs run by either a professional team (normally from MLS) or a youth club that's approved by US Soccer. The programs begin at the Under-12 level all the way to 18 years. By that time top players are playing professionally for an MLS team or an MLS D3 Affiliate team in the USL. Many others go onto to college or foreign professional teams. We're talking close to 10 years of development, not just a school like Shattuck's (which, incidentally, has a USSDA team).

Even while playing college soccer many play in the Premier Development League in the summer.

Shirtless Guy
12-02-2015, 05:33 PM
The point of my hypothetical situation is to make the scholarship level uniform across all sports so we don't see the kind of disparity between hockey funding 18 for 27 players and football funding 85 for 100+ players. The way that works out, hockey has to take less, unless the 75% were to be raised to 90 or 100.

I think that you're right that things need to be more uniform, but I think there should be more for hockey, not less for all.

Slap Shot
12-02-2015, 06:30 PM
Just a bunch of big schools whining that small schools are beating them due to older players . Guess what ? The big schools can recruit the older players as well.

The available recruiting strategy noted in your last sentence is incongruent with the accusation in your first sentence.

manurespreader
12-02-2015, 07:04 PM
So theoretically you could solve the problem, which might or might not be a problem, by allowing 2 additional scholarships per year, and by adopting the rule and then red shirting the players, is that correct?
I Realize this is a crummy solution as the players development would significantly slow down.. but for general discussion...

Shirtless Guy
12-02-2015, 07:06 PM
So theoretically you could solve the problem, which might or might not be a problem, by allowing 2 additional scholarships per year, and by adopting the rule and then red shirting the players, is that correct?
I Realize this is a crummy solution as the players development would significantly slow down.. but for general discussion...yeah, you could do that.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-02-2015, 08:26 PM
Alright, here is all the data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T8MVml6uzgVqmawHgHjsKYzFF4Y165D2R3igWiuZTo4/edit?usp=sharing

Full list of all players currently on rosters including:
League, Team, Name, Position, Class, Birthdate, Commit Date, Hometown, Height, Weight, Hand, Frosh Year, Senior Year, Age of Frosh Year (as 8/1), Days from commitment to first joining team (either 10/1 or 1/1 of the half-season they joined the team), State/Province, Country, Previous (Jr/Prep/HS) Team and League, Previous College (if applicable), First Name, Last Name

Just reposting for visibility and wanted to say that 1.) This is pretty cool, and obviously a lot of work. Good job. And B.- For a guy in his basement without a shirt in December, you've done a nice job in moving this conversation along toward an evenhanded discussion of the actual merits, or lack there of, in this proposal. Thanks.

Shirtless Guy
12-02-2015, 09:28 PM
Just reposting for visibility and wanted to say that 1.) This is pretty cool, and obviously a lot of work. Good job. And B.- For a guy in his basement without a shirt in December, you've done a nice job in moving this conversation along toward an evenhanded discussion of the actual merits, or lack there of, in this proposal. Thanks.thanks on both, I'm trying very hard to take this issue on I ts merits.
From conversations with parents and other family members, you have to be honest with yourself and look at the other side regardless of motives.

Almington
12-02-2015, 09:39 PM
I think that you're right that things need to be more uniform, but I think there should be more for hockey, not less for all.

Except that football is a head count sport and hockey is not. Football coaches would love to be able to recruit at less than a full scholarships.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-03-2015, 07:27 AM
Penn St. coach Guy Gadowski talks to Guy Flaming on the Pipeline Show about this proposal here: (starting around 8:25) https://soundcloud.com/pipeline-show/guy-gadowsky-dec1

Ralph Baer
12-03-2015, 08:08 AM
Penn St. coach Guy Gadowski talks to Guy Flaming on the Pipeline Show about this proposal here: (starting around 8:25) https://soundcloud.com/pipeline-show/guy-gadowsky-dec1
One of the most unconvincing arguments which I have ever heard. The reason that Pac-10 and other power conference don't have hockey teams is because of 21-year old freshmen. Sure!. :rolleyes:

Wisko McBadgerton
12-03-2015, 08:27 AM
One of the most unconvincing arguments which I have ever heard. The reason that Pac-10 and other power conference don't have hockey teams is because of 21-year old freshmen. Sure!. :rolleyes:

Well, yes. Except that's not what he said. One of the things Guy pronounced Gai said to Guy pronounced Gee was that when they talk to university president types who may or may not know anything at all about college hockey, one of the issues that arises is that the age group is an outlier as compared to all other NCAA sports. It's unlike FB and BB which no doubt they are more familiar with. And apparently that meets with some resistance. Not that it is the "reason" the Pac-10 doesn't have college hockey.

Ralph Baer
12-03-2015, 09:02 AM
Well, yes. Except that's not what he said. One of the things Guy pronounced Gai said to Guy pronounced Gee was that when they talk to university president types who may or may not know anything at all about college hockey, one of the issues that arises is that the age group is an outlier as compared to all other NCAA sports. It's unlike FB and BB which no doubt they are more familiar with. And apparently that meets with some resistance. Not that it is the "reason" the Pac-10 doesn't have college hockey.
Yes, that is exactly correct. I just left out the intermediate steps in the argument.

Not that I know anything about how university presidents think, but I suspect that how much it will cost is by far number one on the list. (The exception being RPI's current president who spends money which she doesn't have.) And I would think that fact that overall hockey players appear to do better academically than football and basketball players should greatly outweigh the age aspect or someone is a hypocrite.

FlagDUDE08
12-03-2015, 09:24 AM
Well, yes. Except that's not what he said. One of the things Guy pronounced Gai said to Guy pronounced Gee was that when they talk to university president types who may or may not know anything at all about college hockey, one of the issues that arises is that the age group is an outlier as compared to all other NCAA sports. It's unlike FB and BB which no doubt they are more familiar with. And apparently that meets with some resistance. Not that it is the "reason" the Pac-10 doesn't have college hockey.

It couldn't POSSIBLY be because college administrators look at the bottom line and see hockey as a money pit, now...

Wisko McBadgerton
12-03-2015, 09:59 AM
Yes, that is exactly correct. I just left out the intermediate steps in the argument.

Not that I know anything about how university presidents think, but I suspect that how much it will cost is by far number one on the list. (The exception being RPI's current president who spends money which she doesn't have.) And I would think that fact that overall hockey players appear to do better academically than football and basketball players should greatly outweigh the age aspect or someone is a hypocrite.

I agree that money is the big obstacle, but in these ground work type discussions with large D-1 schools I would assume the vision would be to grow the sport in popularity etc. to where it is revenue producing, as it is at several schools. The money aspect is huge but not insurmountable or nobody would be in D-1 Hockey. (I'd also think Gadowsky is uniquely positioned to have insight into what it takes to start a program at a large P5 institution.) I don't doubt these other discussions take place and issues arise. He's saying it has. Maybe he's just making it up, I don't know.

I'm not aware that better academics have been shown to be tied to 21 year old Freshman more so than 20 yr old Freshman, but it could be I suppose. At UW, which probably skews younger historically, the entire team is generally far above average.


It couldn't POSSIBLY be because college administrators look at the bottom line and see hockey as a money pit, now...

All he said is it meets with resistance. Again, he didn't say it was THE REASON. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. Administrators are likely used to looking at 23 yr old 5th year seniors as the Old Men in the program, not RS sophomores. It doesn't seem surprising at all to me that it's of concern.

mookie1995
12-03-2015, 11:14 AM
Exactly. And the same goes for football.

not even by a long shot. there may be an extra DB or 2. extra WR or RB who play a series or play to give a blow.

you are acting crazy to compare and claim a team shuffles in multiple QB C OT etc and there isn't a core 85% who play every down when they have the ball.

Shirtless Guy
12-03-2015, 11:27 AM
not even by a long shot. there may be an extra DB or 2. extra WR or RB who play a series or play to give a blow.

you are acting crazy to compare and claim a team shuffles in multiple QB C OT etc and there isn't a core 85% who play every down when they have the ball.

I'd put things at about 40 players that play in a game
QB 1
RB 3
TE 3
WR 5
OL 6
DL 8
LB 6
DB 6
P/K 2

FlagDUDE08
12-03-2015, 11:36 AM
The biggest problem with arguing about scholarships playing a factor is that two of the previous national champions aren't allowed to give out scholarships at all. Not even sure why it's being brought into the discussion.

Shirtless Guy
12-03-2015, 12:52 PM
The biggest problem with arguing about scholarships playing a factor is that two of the previous national champions aren't allowed to give out ATHLETIC scholarships at all. Not even sure why it's being brought into the discussion.FYP
That was definitely a tangent, but it is sort of related.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-03-2015, 02:47 PM
ECAC non-scholarship rules are sort of double edged. There is some disadvantage for certain players not getting a full ride. On the other hand any player who's family income is a few points outside the top 10% can get virtually free tuition. (and preferred admission.) And there's no (18) limit on it. They can bring in 30 middle class Canadians and give them all the same deal. It cuts both ways.

I was sort of up in the air about this rule, but as more factual information has come out I find myself coming down on the side of it probably being ok. Oddly, I'm certain that others have come to completely the opposite conclusion. That's ok.

It occurred to me today that UW and MTU will both be getting older players with 3 years of remaining eligibility next year. Dan Labonsky and Keegan Ford respectively. I suspect both programs are happy to have them.