Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
...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.
Originally posted by Shirtless Guy
View Post
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.
Comment