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
12-03-2015, 02:57 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.

By my best there are 32 players currently on D1 rosters that had similar circumstances to Labonsky and Ford.

Side Note: I'd be very interested on getting Keegan Ford's thoughts on leaving Wisconsin, returning to Junior Hockey, committing MTU and when he gets there, one of the assistants (Shuchuk), will be a coach he left at Wisconsin.

Tipsy McStagger
12-03-2015, 03:34 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 scholarships at all. Not even sure why it's being brought into the discussion.
Must be pretty easy for the coaches then. Not having to recruit and all.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-03-2015, 03:35 PM
By my best there are 32 players currently on D1 rosters that had similar circumstances to Labonsky and Ford.

Side Note: I'd be very interested on getting Keegan Ford's thoughts on leaving Wisconsin, returning to Junior Hockey, committing MTU and when he gets there, one of the assistants (Shuchuk), will be a coach he left at Wisconsin.

Ironically, another player touted in the Rigged Game article was RPI's Nick Bailen. He went to RPI under the same circumstances with only 3 years of eligibility left after leaving Bowling Green. Seemed to work out pretty well for both him and RPI.

My best guess is that Keegan was just in over his head maturity-wise to be able to handle the situation at UW last year. Players pretty much universally liked Schuey, so I'd be surprised if it was a problem. Besides Keegan's dad Pat and Schuchuk were team mates at Wisconsin so they've all known each other for quite some time. Keegan is very sound fundamentally and I think he'll do very well for you guys.

mookie1995
12-03-2015, 06:18 PM
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

therefore 85/40

40/19

Wisko McBadgerton
12-11-2015, 06:22 AM
A CHN article about coaches comments here: http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2015/12/10_more_coaches_weigh_in_on_big.php

And Notre Dame Coach Jeff Jackson explains his support here: http://collegeblog.weei.com/sports/college/2015/12/10/notre-dame-coach-jeff-jackson-explains-why-he-supports-big-tens-freshman-age-limit-proposal/

manurespreader
12-11-2015, 08:13 AM
Well that was interesting. On the whole it doesn't seem all that great a move, especially with all the other issues. Maybe what they ought to do is have a big pow wow and make several changes at once. Like 2 more scholarships, lower the age, no recruiting below 15, whatever. Fix the gentleman's agreement that Harvard routinely violates, stuff like that.
Oh wait.. they already do that...

I think the CHL issue is a big one, we have lost several top players from our state to the CHL in the past year.

Ralph Baer
12-11-2015, 08:29 AM
Well that was interesting. On the whole it doesn't seem all that great a move, especially with all the other issues. Maybe what they ought to do is have a big pow wow and make several changes at once. Like 2 more scholarships, lower the age, no recruiting below 15, whatever. Fix the gentleman's agreement that Harvard routinely violates, stuff like that.
Oh wait.. they already do that...

I think the CHL issue is a big one, we have lost several top players from our state to the CHL in the past year.
The Connecticut coach is in favor of this because it will end stockpiling of recruits? Then why not propose that directly instead of proposing something which may have that as a side effect?

I agree that the CHL issue is one that really needs addressing.

pinch
12-11-2015, 08:57 AM
I like the idea of making college hockey younger.... it's college hockey... you want just hockey, go find it somewhere else.

bothman
12-11-2015, 09:20 AM
Well that was interesting. On the whole it doesn't seem all that great a move, especially with all the other issues. Maybe what they ought to do is have a big pow wow and make several changes at once. Like 2 more scholarships, lower the age, no recruiting below 15, whatever. Fix the gentleman's agreement that Harvard routinely violates, stuff like that.
Oh wait.. they already do that...

I think the CHL issue is a big one, we have lost several top players from our state to the CHL in the past year.

Harvard violates gentleman's agreements? Name examples.

Harvard has no LOIs and has a very stringent admissions process and so the coaches routinely poke and recruit against that.

Harvard has a lot of recruits, but that is because recruits don't sign up for Harvard....they sign up for the admissions process. I could give you a laundry list of high profile recruits that "pledged" Harvard only to end up at BU, Denver, and other schools because the academics never got to where they needed to be.

Shirtless Guy
12-11-2015, 09:30 AM
Harvard violates gentleman's agreements? Name examples.

Harvard has no LOIs and has a very stringent admissions process and so the coaches routinely poke and recruit against that.

Harvard has a lot of recruits, but that is because recruits don't sign up for Harvard....they sign up for the admissions process. I could give you a laundry list of high profile recruits that "pledged" Harvard only to end up at BU, Denver, and other schools because the academics never got to where they needed to be.
Jake Olson

Bale
12-11-2015, 09:47 AM
I'm not sure I understand Jackson's/the nhl gm's argument. Essentially they're saying playing against better competition is bad because you can't put up the state lines in college that you can in the chl. On the other hand college hockey is now putting more kids in the nhl than ever before.

To me they just argued against themselves. College hockey is getting older and because of that it's "worse", but there are more players that we trust to play for our teams than we did when the players were younger. So which is it?

Don't get me wrong, there are compelling arguments on both sides. I'm just not sure using the nhl argument is a valid one.

St. Clown
12-11-2015, 09:52 AM
I like the idea of making college hockey younger.... it's college hockey... you want just hockey, go find it somewhere else.

Roughly 40% of college students are 25 and older - source. (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372)


In 2013, there were about 12.2 million college students under age 25 and 8.2 million students 25 years old and over. The numbers of younger and older students increased between 2000 and 2013

Wisko McBadgerton
12-11-2015, 10:07 AM
The NHL has said for sometime that college hockey is too "old". Probably partly because statistically, the peak point production in the NHL comes at 25 years of age. What they'd like ideally is players graduating at 22-23 with 4 years of play and development in a top league like the NCAA. (Presumably in return the NCAA would want the NHL to promote fewer early departures.) But then guys older can play ECHL or AHL if they just need more time or work which would also help keep those leagues a touch younger. And it would probably get them another year or 3 out of good borderline players in the minors, rather then the 2-3 they get from the average 24 -25 year old. It's all good for the pros.

How much the NCAA should align with the NHL is a question, but obviously FB and BB have been very successful in aligning with the pros as far as growth and marketing go.

Bale
12-11-2015, 10:23 AM
The NHL has said for sometime that college hockey is too "old". Probably partly because statistically, the peak point production in the NHL comes at 25 years of age. What they'd like ideally is players graduating at 22-23 with 4 years of play and development in a top league like the NCAA. (Presumably in return the NCAA would want the NHL to promote fewer early departures.) But then guys older can play ECHL or AHL if they just need more time or work which would also help keep those leagues a touch younger. And it would probably get them another year or 3 out of good borderline players in the minors, rather then the 2-3 they get from the average 24 -25 year old. It's all good for the pros.

How much the NCAA should align with the NHL is a question, but obviously FB and BB have been very successful in aligning with the pros as far as growth and marketing go.

Of course that would be the perfect ideal for the nhl. But let's not accuse the nhl of being too forward thinking.

The argument to that, again, is the stats don't lie. There are more college players now than ever before. If the argument is that college is getting older and thas a negative, shouldn't the number of players from college actually be going down? It seems to me that if these older players are such a bad thing to the nhl, they would be taking less and less college players. If anything, it seems like older players are actually making the level of competition better and players in college are developing better. Of course all of that is presuming older players are really having as much of an affect as people are attempting to portray.

I'm still split on this. I understand what people are saying about limiting the age, but on the flip side, the stats don't seem to back them up. Are kids being pushed back? Yes. Is it happening as often as is being portrayed? I'm not so sure the numbers bear that out. The cynical side of me stI'll believes this is much more about stacking the deck than it is truly caring about the majority of kids.

bothman
12-11-2015, 10:39 AM
Jake Olson

So you are saying that Harvard staff definitively pursued Olson and not the other way around?

Harvard has acquired talent and lost talent due to the players having change of hearts (either about the school, a coaching change, or the fact that they were going to be parked in JRs for 1-2 years) . Some have even gone over to Yale and vice versa.

Anyone who believes that a 17-18 year old pledge (or even a 15-16 year old pledge) is made out of concrete either doesn't have children or is delusional.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-11-2015, 10:54 AM
Of course all of that is presuming older players are really having as much of an affect as people are attempting to portray.



While I get what you're saying, IMO this is a thing. Moving the limit from 3 yrs of juniors to 2 yrs I don't believe will have much, if any, effect on the level of competition. Jackson and proponents say primarily the same guys will get in, and presumably develop by 24. I think that's true, although there will be some anecdotal instances I suppose where it's not.

As a Wisconsin fan, I don't really see it as a competitive edge thing myself (which I completely realize I'm predisposed to be biased) But the 21 year old freshman haven't hurt UW. What has is one and two and done players, and the CHL. The push back on early departures is ,of course "don't recruit those kids." But I think NCAA Hockey is better off with the best talent, playing for the longest amount of time in league. I don't think this really addresses those issue so much, but on it's own merits, I'm not opposed to it. I do see the possibility of an alternative league where we all take that advice all eventually just recruit older players and let the young stars go North. I don't think that would be best for the growth of college hockey. And I don't think pushing kids back is good for the vast majority of players in that situation.

Bale
12-11-2015, 11:08 AM
And I don't think pushing kids back is good for the vast majority of players in that situation.

And for me, that's the rub. We don't necessarily KNOW that kids are beino pushed back in most cases. That's the assumption made by the proponents because that's what they are doing when the have older kids (as Jackson admitted in his interview). The number that were thrown out earlier in this thread seem to fly in the face of that argument. It seems like we're all arguing something (coaches included) in which we don't have a full set of facts. We're still arguing what the facts are. Things like, how often are kids being pushed back versus how often are kids being recruited late and how many players would actually be affected are essential information to come to a logical conclusion. Maybe the anecdotal evidence is actually coming from the proposes side, we don't really know at this point.

I agree that if we're talking about 100 kids per class fall into this category and there are 400+ kids at any given time that are affected by this and a majority of them are being pushed back, then there is a real problem. Unfortunately, we have no idea on whether that's true or not.

giwan
12-11-2015, 11:35 AM
Of course that would be the perfect ideal for the nhl. But let's not accuse the nhl of being too forward thinking.

The argument to that, again, is the stats don't lie. There are more college players now than ever before. If the argument is that college is getting older and thas a negative, shouldn't the number of players from college actually be going down? It seems to me that if these older players are such a bad thing to the nhl, they would be taking less and less college players. If anything, it seems like older players are actually making the level of competition better and players in college are developing better. Of course all of that is presuming older players are really having as much of an affect as people are attempting to portray.

So the NHL teams can give any age kid they want the MOST a great contract to move on to the pros at anytime but somehow keep picking these older people they are complaining about?

Wisko McBadgerton
12-11-2015, 11:51 AM
And for me, that's the rub. We don't necessarily KNOW that kids are beino pushed back in most cases. That's the assumption made by the proponents because that's what they are doing when the have older kids (as Jackson admitted in his interview). The number that were thrown out earlier in this thread seem to fly in the face of that argument. It seems like we're all arguing something (coaches included) in which we don't have a full set of facts. We're still arguing what the facts are. Things like, how often are kids being pushed back versus how often are kids being recruited late and how many players would actually be affected are essential information to come to a logical conclusion. Maybe the anecdotal evidence is actually coming from the proposes side, we don't really know at this point.

I agree that if we're talking about 100 kids per class fall into this category and there are 400+ kids at any given time that are affected by this and a majority of them are being pushed back, then there is a real problem. Unfortunately, we have no idea on whether that's true or not.

Let me put it the opposite way. Whether or not they're being pushed back (and also speaking as a parent) I'd much rather have my kid in school at 20 playing hockey, than have him playing a third year of Juniors considering the time and expense invested for a relatively low chance of return at that point if they haven't been pushed back. It just seems like the overwhelming majority of 21 year olds would develop as much in their freshman year as they would in Juniors. Put some of the onus on the school to spend and invest to develop them vs. leaving them out in the cold to shoulder expense and the high risk of no return. Red shirt some. Cut some loose if you must. At least they're getting a start on their education. And for those very few who fall through the cracks, there will be a place for them if they are good enough. There are 30 plus transfers getting into school with only three years of eligibility remaining this year, which seems to show coaches will take them.

Of course again, that's from my Badger view of college hockey. One thing this thread has made me realize even more is that my own perception of what college hockey is at it's best (15,000 screaming fans in the house every night, 20-25 NHL picks and top prospects on the ice) is vastly different then say a fan of a smaller eastern program like St. Lawrence playing at historic Appleton arena. It would be hard to imagine we're talking about the same sport if interviewed separately, I'd guess. It's just very different, so naturally we're going to have widely differing views on issues.

Bale
12-11-2015, 12:58 PM
Of course again, that's from my Badger view of college hockey. One thing this thread has made me realize even more is that my own perception of what college hockey is at it's best (15,000 screaming fans in the house every night, 20-25 NHL picks and top prospects on the ice) is vastly different then say a fan of a smaller eastern program like St. Lawrence playing at historic Appleton arena. It would be hard to imagine we're talking about the same sport if interviewed separately, I'd guess. It's just very different, so naturally we're going to have widely differing views on issues.

that certainly does seem what it's coming down to, doesn't it? We all think that our experience is the typical one so we assume that's the case for all fans, players, coaches and programs. It's what makes college hockey so fascinating and frustrating all at once.