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

SkiUMahLaw
12-13-2015, 02:21 PM
Good point !!! and the actual data from none other than the University of Minnesota, for 2015, bears this out.
Campus and Unit Enrollment by Age for Fall 2015
http://www.oir.umn.edu/student/enrollment/term/1159/current/13267
(Data on this report is an age range which the student falls into at the start of the term.)

The data is broken out for each of the University of Minnesota campuses and system wide as well. For the Twin Cities campus, 15,944 are at or OVER 25 (31%) and 31,373 are at or OVER 21 (62%). After looking over these figures you really get the sense of the enormous hypocrisy on the part of the University on Minnesota in generating this proposal. If we are thinking student athletes and what gives them the most choice and positions them for the rigors of competitive academics, older is better. Look at how many college D1 football and basketball players never graduate. These teams are nothing more than farm teams for the pro's. College hockey is doing an outstanding job around academics and college graduation rates because the players are older than in most other sports. Why don't we leave it up to the families and players to decide what is in their best interests and what is best for them?

Actually, Dutchman, your stat is misleading: if you remove the graduate students from the equation (which is done by using the dropdown at top of that page you cite), you have exactly 2600 out of 30,504 UM-Twin Cities students are over age 25. That's 8.5%, and closer to the national average for 4 year, public, nonprofits.

UMD's is closer to 4%.

joecct
12-13-2015, 02:29 PM
Is it the end of the world if the B1G proposal passes?

blackswampboy
12-13-2015, 03:04 PM
Is it the end of the world if the B1G proposal passes?

no.
it just screws late-bloomers (see Hammond, Andrew), in an effort to address a problem that doesn't exist.
and if the legislation passes, it will be done with the assistance of non-hockey conferences--at the expense of hockey schools that don't have representation on the council.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-13-2015, 04:23 PM
Actually, Dutchman, your stat is misleading: if you remove the graduate students from the equation (which is done by using the dropdown at top of that page you cite), you have exactly 2600 out of 30,504 UM-Twin Cities students are over age 25. That's 8.5%, and closer to the national average for 4 year, public, nonprofits.

UMD's is closer to 4%.

Interesting.

So if I take the average age of UMD's hockey freshman (20.6) and they graduate in just 4yrs., (ahead of the average student, I'm guessing.) they will (on average) still be older than 96% of all UMD undergraduates. (61% are 20 and under and 35% are 21-24.)

Shirtless Guy
12-13-2015, 04:44 PM
Interesting.

So if I take the average age of UMD's hockey freshman (20.6) and they graduate in just 4yrs., (ahead of the average student, I'm guessing.) they will (on average) still be older than 96% of all UMD undergraduates. (61% are 20 and under and 35% are 21-24.)
Taking one class at one school is a really bad way to look at this.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-13-2015, 05:01 PM
Taking one class at one school is a really bad way to look at this.

The age stats were there for UMD. I think the point is valid for UMD that if the freshman there are 20, they (just barely) will fall within the age parameter of 96% of students.(although apparently still older than the majority of freshman.) Any 21 year old freshman will definitively fall outside that parameter. (So presumably it follows they are older than 96% of freshman that will stay 4 years.)

I don't know about all D-1 hockey playing schools. My guess is that the majority of them have a similar make up to the Minnesota system. Have to look into it more.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-13-2015, 09:14 PM
I'm sure there are probably outliers each way, but here's some stats on % of 25-29 year old undergraduate population for a few schools from college factual:

Quinnipiac - 7.7%

MSUM- 9.1%

Bowling Green- 7%

Sacred Heart- 9.8%

Penn St.- 6.9%

Mich Tech- 9.5%

U of MN -8.5%

UMD -4.5%

So it appears at the least that 90-96% of 4 yr. undergraduates were not 21 years old their freshman year in these schools. And when you factor in 30-65% on time graduation rates, it seems sure there is a much smaller number of 21 year old freshman than even these numbers would indicate. In all these cases between 60-75% of the entire undergraduate student body (so not just freshman) is 21 or younger. The idea that 21 year old freshman and 25 or 26 year old seniors are more representative just doesn't seem to stand up.

Shirtless Guy
12-13-2015, 09:22 PM
I'm sure there are probably outliers each way, but here's some stats on % of 25-29 year old undergraduate population for a few schools from college factual:

Quinnipiac - 7.7%

MSUM- 9.1%

Bowling Green- 7%

Sacred Heart- 9.8%

Penn St.- 6.9%

Mich Tech- 9.5%

U of MN -8.5%

UMD -4.5%

So it appears at the least that 90-96% of 4 yr. undergraduates were not 21 years old their freshman year in these schools. And when you factor in 30-65% on time graduation rates, it seems sure there is a much smaller number of 21 year old freshman than even these numbers would indicate. In all these cases between 60-75% of the entire undergraduate student body (so not just freshman) is 21 or younger. The idea that 21 year old freshman and 25 or 26 year old seniors are more representative just doesn't seem to stand up.
But if 8% of the population is older, what's the big deal if 8% of players are? Currently 19% of college hockey is...

Wisko McBadgerton
12-13-2015, 09:50 PM
But if 8% of the population is older, what's the big deal if 8% of players are? Currently 19% of college hockey is...

I'm not saying it's a big deal. (although that's twice the % and Hockey is the outlier in this regard.) The argument has been made that 21 year olds would be more representative of the student body in general. That doesn't seem to be a good argument is all.

Shirtless Guy
12-13-2015, 09:55 PM
I'm not saying it's a big deal. (although that's twice the % and Hockey is the outlier in this regard.) The argument has been made that 21 year olds would be more representative of the student body in general. That doesn't seem to be a good argument is all.the argument is that college is getting older so 21yo freshmen and 25yo seniors aren't big outliers anymore.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-13-2015, 09:55 PM
Also, if it's also true that 21 year old freshman equals more wins, something I'm not sure of at all, but has been given as a reason the B1G would propose this, then wouldn't it seem natural that there would be more teams taking on older players in the future, thereby moving Hockey players further out of line with the student body in general?

Wisko McBadgerton
12-13-2015, 10:04 PM
the argument is that college is getting older so 21yo freshmen and 25yo seniors aren't big outliers anymore.

Well, they apparently are, depending on your definition, I guess. Also, this year's national data shows that undergraduate populations are actually younger then last year. So there's that, apparently working in the opposite direction this year.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-14-2015, 07:45 AM
But if 8% of the population is older, what's the big deal if 8% of players are? Currently 19% of college hockey is...

Was thinking about this so I looked into some of the distribution on your chart (again, nice work, and found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T8MVml6uzgVqmawHgHjsKYzFF4Y165D2R3igWiuZTo4/edit#gid=455782407 ) and I find that 31 teams have 4 or less of these players and 66 in total. Comes out to 7.9% of players and right in line with the student body averages. The other 29 teams have between 5 and 16 of these players and 250 in total or almost 32% of their players.

So half of hockey is pretty representative at less than 1 in 10. The other half has 4 times more older players than the student body at almost 1 in 3.

Do we make anything of that?

dxmnkd316
12-14-2015, 08:00 AM
Between 5 and 16 is a pretty wide range. So to say half has four times is a bit misleading. Half have more than average.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-14-2015, 08:37 AM
Between 5 and 16 is a pretty wide range. So to say half has four times is a bit misleading. Half have more than average.

Good point. More accurately I suppose would be 71.6% (43/60) have more than average as having 3 would be 11.5%. Here's the distribution with number of 21 yr old freshman followed by how many teams have that number. (So 6 teams have 0 players, 6 have 1, 5 have 2, etc.)

0-6
1-6
2-5
3-7
4-7

5-4
6-6
7-2
8-4
9-2
10-0
11-5
12-3
13-2
14-0
15-0
16-1

Shirtless Guy
12-14-2015, 08:57 AM
If you extend this to 4 which would be an average of 1 per class, which seems reasonable even if it would end up being slightly higher than non-athlete student population, we're looking at half the teams falling in the 4 or less range. It is interesting to see the gigantic range between UAA, SHU, MSUM, LSSU, Niagara (16-12) and BC, BU, Harvard, Yale (none). You wonder how much this stuff swings when coaching changes happen. UAA and LSSU are both in that situation, with recent coaching changes that could swing things older while a coach tries to reshape the roster early on with many players already committed.

I still go back to the fact that most of these players committed less than a year. The average 21 year is committed over 100 days less than the next group so this really is about adding players towards the end of recruiting because a team needs to replace losses or lost out on other younger recruits. 71% commit within a year of arriving on campus (next best is 20yos at 58%).

purpleinnebraska
12-14-2015, 09:26 AM
I still go back to the fact that most of these players committed less than a year. The average 21 year is committed over 100 days less than the next group so this really is about adding players towards the end of recruiting because a team needs to replace losses or lost out on other younger recruits. 71% commit within a year of arriving on campus (next best is 20yos at 58%).

And this is where I think the big disconnect comes in this whole debate. The big schools, who get their choice of NHL draft picks and players on the USNTDP, seem to believe that the 21 year-old freshmen are guys who are being stashed down in the USHL/NAHL/BCHL. If that was the case, I would be in full agreement with the proposal, and would like to dump the gentlemen's agreement as well. But the fact is these are mostly guys with no other offers, going to schools that need to fill out their rosters.

davyd83
12-14-2015, 09:37 AM
Here is the proposal I would put forth to mitigate some of the differences in the age rule. First allow kids who have tried out but not made the roster of a CHL team to maintain full eligibility. I know of a player in the Saskatchewan Junior league right now who skated in the couple of exhibitions in the CHL, but did not make the club. In order to join the NCAA he will have to sit out some games due to his participation in the CHL camp. Another proposal would be to allow CHL players to maintain full NCAA eligibility through their 17-year-old season. This would give the player more time to make a decision and would also lessen the recruitment of 14 and 15-year-olds. it would also allow NCAA programs a longer evaluation period on a young player and iwhen they complete their 17-year-old season in the CHL, then if decide they would prefer to go the college route, they would be free to move to the USHL for another year or two of seasoning before entering the NCAA.

Shirtless Guy
12-14-2015, 09:40 AM
Here is the proposal I would put forth to mitigate some of the differences in the age rule. First allow kids who have tried out but not made the roster of a CHL team to maintain full eligibility. I know of a player in the Saskatchewan Junior league right now who skated in the couple of exhibitions in the CHL, but did not make the club. In order to join the NCAA he will have to sit out some games due to his participation in the CHL camp. Another proposal would be to allow CHL players to maintain full NCAA eligibility through their 17-year-old season. This would give them more time to make a decision and would also lessen the recruitment of 14 and 15-year-olds. it would also allow NCAA programs a longer evaluation period. On a young player and if they complete their 17-year-old season in the CHL, they could then move to the USHL and decided they would preferred to go the college route, they would be free to move to the USHL for another year or two of seasoning before entering the NCAA.There definitely could be changes to the CHL issue, especially with tryouts, exhibitions, etc. I'm pretty sure that specific player could have kept his eligibility under those circumstances if he paid his own way, but that isn't the easiest thing to do for a younger player if he doesn't understand his options, which is why College Hockey Inc. exists.

SkiUMahLaw
12-14-2015, 10:11 AM
Here is the proposal I would put forth to mitigate some of the differences in the age rule. First allow kids who have tried out but not made the roster of a CHL team to maintain full eligibility. I know of a player in the Saskatchewan Junior league right now who skated in the couple of exhibitions in the CHL, but did not make the club. In order to join the NCAA he will have to sit out some games due to his participation in the CHL camp. Another proposal would be to allow CHL players to maintain full NCAA eligibility through their 17-year-old season. This would give the player more time to make a decision and would also lessen the recruitment of 14 and 15-year-olds. it would also allow NCAA programs a longer evaluation period on a young player and iwhen they complete their 17-year-old season in the CHL, then if decide they would prefer to go the college route, they would be free to move to the USHL for another year or two of seasoning before entering the NCAA.


Forgive me, but wouldn't both proposals kill the USHL and Community-based models? If US players could play in the CHL without penalty and still come back to the NCAA? Why would anybody stay in HS or go to the USHL at all then?

And if you believe the NC$$ will allow any changes to allow some student-athletes to play in a paid league and remain amateurs after the O'Bannon lawsuit, you are delusional. While college hockey is a niche sport, you cannot discount that the NC$$ model is under attack, and if the NC$$ is forced to pay players a portion of revenues (not even profits), it will be the end of college sports as we know it. Hence proposals to make college hockey players look much more like the rest of the student body.