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

Fishman'81
12-14-2015, 03:54 PM
As a D-3 fan of many years, I have routinely noted 25/26 YO's playing at that level. They had hung around in the OJHL for a few extra years, but eventually ended-up at a D-3 school. Why..? Because they weren't perceived to be talented enough for D-1.

This is an interesting thread, but perhaps we are arguing a moot point. Clearly, the blue-chippers either go directly from Juniors to the professional ranks, or are snapped-up by the BC's and Minnesotas of the world. (The former is the youngest team in the country, IIRC, and they fare pretty well with kids who barely need to shave.) ;)

Patman
12-14-2015, 09:33 PM
As a D-3 fan of many years, I have routinely noted 25/26 YO's playing at that level. They had hung around in the OJHL for a few extra years, but eventually ended-up at a D-3 school. Why..? Because they weren't perceived to be talented enough for D-1.

This is an interesting thread, but perhaps we are arguing a moot point. Clearly, the blue-chippers either go directly from Juniors to the professional ranks, or are snapped-up by the BC's and Minnesotas of the world. (The former is the youngest team in the country, IIRC, and they fare pretty well with kids who barely need to shave.) ;)

well, the "kids" would be "kids" if it weren't for the highly developed junior systems. Its only because they have a post-HS opportunity to physically mature in their sport without going to college that these things happen. So basically you'd have to scrap the entire junior system before you get that "right after high school" behavior.

Shirtless Guy
12-18-2015, 02:33 PM
So from everything I've read, these are the reasons mentioned for the proposal:
The age difference is too big between the haves (17-19 yo frosh) and the have nots (23-25 yo seniors).
The have nots are getting commitments and stashing them and making them wait unnecessarily while the haves lose players early and don't have access to these stashed players.
The NHL thinks college hockey is getting too old and bad for development.
These 21-year-old freshman are extremely a-typical for college compared to the student body as a whole.
The players, whether good enough to get a commitment from a school or not should not have to wait until 21 years old to get on with their education.

Am I missing anything?

The Exiled One
12-18-2015, 04:12 PM
So from everything I've read, these are the reasons mentioned for the proposal:
The age difference is too big between the haves (17-19 yo frosh) and the have nots (23-25 yo seniors).
The have nots are getting commitments and stashing them and making them wait unnecessarily while the haves lose players early and don't have access to these stashed players.
The NHL thinks college hockey is getting too old and bad for development.
These 21-year-old freshman are extremely a-typical for college compared to the student body as a whole.
The players, whether good enough to get a commitment from a school or not should not have to wait until 21 years old to get on with their education.

Am I missing anything?
Those are the popularly stated reasons, yes. However...

It is important to note that most are just opinions written as statements of fact.
Others are statements of fact without proof to back them up.
These are just the pro arguments absent the cons.
The method of introducing the proposal may be more controversial than the proposal itself.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-18-2015, 04:26 PM
Those are the popularly stated reasons, yes. However...

• It is important to note that most are just opinions written as statements of fact.
• Others are statements of fact without proof to back them up.
• These are just the pro arguments absent the cons.
• The method of introducing the proposal may be more controversial than the proposal itself.

I'd guess Shirtless Guy is simply trying to organize the arguments in an easy form, and a similar list of cons can or will be added.

I think the merits of the method of introduction has been pretty much universally agreed upon prior.

Off the top of my head I'd add to the list the fact that Hockey's age restrictions vary from all other D1 sports by 2 years.
And that there is apparent concern or resistance to hockey's age rules from current non-hockey D-1 schools in regards to expansion to those schools.

Shirtless Guy
12-18-2015, 04:32 PM
Those are the popularly stated reasons, yes. However...

It is important to note that most are just opinions written as statements of fact.
Others are statements of fact without proof to back them up.
These are just the pro arguments absent the cons.
The method of introducing the proposal may be more controversial than the proposal itself.


I'd guess Shirtless Guy is simply trying to organize the arguments in an easy form, and a similar list of cons can or will be added.

I think the merits of the method of introduction has been pretty much universally agreed upon prior.

Off the top of my head I'd add to the list the fact that Hockey's age restrictions vary from all other D1 sports by 2 years.
And that there is apparent concern or resistance to hockey's age rules from current non-hockey D-1 schools in regards to expansion to those schools.

Thanks guys, just trying to go through each of them and focus on looking at the facts of each "reason" and see if they hold water will probably be the first article when we relaunch TechHockeyGuide.com soon.

I was looking at Jeff Jackson's interview complaining about his CCHA playoff loss to Alaska in 2006 and Alaska was rather heavy on the 21-yo frosh (9 of 20 players) but Notre Dame was just under a year younger on average, which given the supposed better talent (which they probably didn't have yet in Jackson's first year), its not much of an argument, more of an excuse.

Fishman'81
12-18-2015, 04:48 PM
So from everything I've read, these are the reasons mentioned for the proposal:
The age difference is too big between the haves (17-19 yo frosh) and the have nots (23-25 yo seniors).
The have nots are getting commitments and stashing them and making them wait unnecessarily while the haves lose players early and don't have access to these stashed players.
The NHL thinks college hockey is getting too old and bad for development.
These 21-year-old freshman are extremely a-typical for college compared to the student body as a whole.
The players, whether good enough to get a commitment from a school or not should not have to wait until 21 years old to get on with their education.

Am I missing anything?

Respectfully submitted:

A 19 YO Freshman will become a 23 YO Senior.

Stashed players are generally those passed over by the "haves", anyway, and can decommit if forced to stay stashed.

The NHL has subverted college hockey at every turn. It's agenda isn't worth a nod in this context.

Yes, a 21 YO Freshman is atypical. But they're only 21 YO Freshman because no D-1 school wanted them at 18. It's very rare that any of them excel in the college game. (Witness how many of them settle for D-3.)

Nobody is forced to wait until age 21 to pursue an education. There are avenues other than hockey...

And face it, does anyone really believe that Lucia and the B10 were worried about anyone's education when they floated this proposal? Minnesota and the other "have" programs experience early departures all the time. (And I get it: better to have a Vanek for a year or two than not at all.) But to even suggest that this proposal was "for the kids" is disingenuous at best.

The Exiled One
12-18-2015, 04:49 PM
I'd guess Shirtless Guy is simply trying to organize the arguments in an easy form, and a similar list of cons can or will be added.

I think the merits of the method of introduction has been pretty much universally agreed upon prior.
Duly noted.

Ralph Baer
12-18-2015, 07:35 PM
A 19 YO Freshman will become a 23 YO Senior.
Only if he has a birthday during the school year, otherwise it is 22-year old senior.

Fishman'81
12-18-2015, 08:50 PM
Only if he has a birthday during the school year, otherwise it is 22-year old senior.

A distinction lacking a significant difference, but thanks...

The bottom-line remains that the older teams generally under-perform the younger ones, so I fail to see the point in the B10's argument. Who cares if players are 25 or 45, if there's no competitive advantage in play?

Shirtless Guy
12-18-2015, 08:55 PM
A distinction lacking a difference...

The bottom-line remains that the older teams generally under-perform the younger ones, so I fail to see the point in the B10's argument.

Hey, I'm with you, I'm just trying to work through all the arguments and see if they hold water. Interesting note, we can stop worrying about 25 year olds. Only 2 players currently rostered would be considered 25 by National Center Education Statistics.

Dutchman
12-19-2015, 05:01 AM
Related Discussion:

http://www.bcinterruption.com/boston-college-hockey-recruiting/2015/8/27/9214041/a-14-year-old-commits-to-boston-college-as-hockey-recruiting-grows

"A 14 Year Old Commits To Boston College, As Hockey Recruiting Grows More Absurd"

"As BC fans, we have been more than willing to ride on the high horse and criticize other programs for increasingly relying on and recruiting ever-older players .... "
"Obviously, all parties involved—fans, coaches, parents—would agree that a 14, 15 or even really 16-year-old "committing" to a college is pretty much ridiculous, and yet the whole thing continues to get weirder."

blackswampboy
12-19-2015, 09:09 AM
Interesting note, we can stop worrying about 25 year olds. Only 2 players currently rostered would be considered 25 by National Center Education Statistics.

If one of the two you were counting was Dajon Mingo...as of yesterday he left the program.

jnacc
12-19-2015, 09:47 AM
[QUOTE=Dutchman;6243012]Related Discussion:

http://www.bcinterruption.com/boston-college-hockey-recruiting/2015/8/27/9214041/a-14-year-old-commits-to-boston-college-as-hockey-recruiting-grows

"A 14 Year Old Commits To Boston College, As Hockey Recruiting Grows More Absurd"


The only way to end this is by truly eliminating the current "gentlemen agreement" and have any and all programs continue to woo this children until they actually sign a letter of intent. If enough of them "renege", the ensuing chaos will convince most schools that such commitments are not worth the bother.

Shirtless Guy
12-19-2015, 12:59 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%.

upon further review, college hockey players who were 21 year old freshmen would not be considered 25 year old seniors by this survey. Only 2 players (one who left his team yesterday) meet that criteria on being 25 at start of fall term, both were redshirted at some point in their college career.
Sadly the breakout on the stats for U of M and NCES doesn't break out enough in the 18-24 age range to really understand the questioned age disparity.

Shirtless Guy
12-19-2015, 01:00 PM
[QUOTE=Dutchman;6243012]Related Discussion:

http://www.bcinterruption.com/boston-college-hockey-recruiting/2015/8/27/9214041/a-14-year-old-commits-to-boston-college-as-hockey-recruiting-grows

"A 14 Year Old Commits To Boston College, As Hockey Recruiting Grows More Absurd"


The only way to end this is by truly eliminating the current "gentlemen agreement" and have any and all programs continue to woo this children until they actually sign a letter of intent. If enough of them "renege", the ensuing chaos will convince most schools that such commitments are not worth the bother.Or you just don't allow the gentleman's agreement to cover players that committed before age 16...or 17...or whatever.

Bale
12-19-2015, 02:46 PM
[QUOTE=jnacc;6243053]Or you just don't allow the gentleman's agreement to cover players that committed before age 16...or 17...or whatever.

Or...you know, just don't recruit players until they are 16 at the youngest. But that would require coaches to have restraint, so that's out the window.

Slap Shot
12-19-2015, 08:25 PM
[QUOTE=jnacc;6243053]Or you just don't allow the gentleman's agreement to cover players that committed before age 16...or 17...or whatever.

I'd say not before June 30 following their So. year in HS, possibly Jr. year. Age should matter less given you have kids finishing the same school year at different ages and let them focus on school as much as they can during the year.

The Exiled One
12-19-2015, 08:59 PM
I'd say not before June 30 following their So. year in HS, possibly Jr. year. Age should matter less given you have kids finishing the same school year at different ages and let them focus on school as much as they can during the year.
Easier said than done. As it stands, a nine year-old could call up an NCAA coach and the NCAA coach could promise him a scholarship. How you write the rule to ban that practice is the key. Done poorly, you could turn off recruits or even inadvertently nudge them towards major juniors.

Shirtless Guy
12-23-2015, 11:40 AM
So Coaches think it will pass:
http://blog.collegehockeynews.com/2015/12/growing-belief-among-coaches-big-10-proposal-will-pass/