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

Bonin21
11-24-2015, 01:32 PM
Painful argument

SJHovey
11-24-2015, 01:40 PM
Would be a good thing for this to pass.

Though the ezac teams and north dakota would be bitter i'm sure, no more 25 year old canadians playing for them.http://www.collegehockeynews.com/almanac/funfacts-ageavg.php

Wisko McBadgerton
11-24-2015, 01:41 PM
Which one of those doesn't mutually benefit the school?

Who get's paid for work that doesn't benefit the payer?

Ronnieb
11-24-2015, 01:45 PM
Full disclosure...I am a BC fan. While I don't particularly love the idea of 21 year old freshmen etc my stance has softened on that over the years. First, Jerry York has had plenty of success nationally while almost always having the youngest or 2nd youngest team in the country. It hasn't prevented BC from winning and winning big. So even if BC voted for this, it makes sense to me that this was started by the Big Ten schools. Wisconsin stinks on ice, Minnesota hasn't won since 2003, Michigan last won in 1998, Michigan State has been an average program the last five years or so.

If you want/need older freshmen, bring it on. It really doesn't bother me that much at all. I may joke about it but I will never use it as an excuse when BC loses. Never.

Nice, you may hate this, but I agree with everything you just said :)

Bonin21
11-24-2015, 01:47 PM
Average age is not what we need to look at. We need count of would be ineligible players currently on each team that would have had to come in earlier. Without raw data pulling this does not sound fun.

RENCEB
11-24-2015, 01:51 PM
By all means get rid of the overaged Canadian mercs.

I have no idea how Merrimack would field a team without them but I'm sure they'll figure out something.We'll just continue to import overage Swedes....:D

Bonin21
11-24-2015, 01:52 PM
Is the proposal based on year of birth or is there a cutoff date? Not a ton of time to research right now. I know USHL age limits are birth year.

Wisko McBadgerton
11-24-2015, 01:57 PM
Average age is not what we need to look at. We need count of would be ineligible players currently on each team that would have had to come in earlier. Without raw data pulling this does not sound fun.

Right. And you can't just go by '94 birth years. Wisco has 2 players that I think would fall under the rule. A third, Keryluk is 21 now but is two years from HS graduation so would be fine. (Plus two RS freshmen that are '94's.) I see names of some past stars being thrown around out there, but almost all that I see would have been just fine as well.

Edit: My reading is HS graduating class plus two years. Almost all sports are HS plus one year.

manurespreader
11-24-2015, 02:00 PM
Well a few things to think about. Why would the b1g do it this way. Pretty chicken...****. Second, lets say you have a kid who was held back when he was 5 and now graduates after his 18th birthday. then he does two years of juniors. he could easily turn 21 at the beginning of the semester.
third, what's to keep schools from enrolling a kid who would be 21 in the fall, in the spring, before he turns 21?

I wonder who brought it up in the first place. Also european kids typically take a year after HS before going on to higher education, so do they count too. Add 1 year of juniors and the gap year and suddenly you are too old?

Just food for thought.

BCat
11-24-2015, 02:05 PM
The NCAA restricts age in all D-1 and D-2 sports. Waivers can be granted, of course, but eligibility begins to be affected the year after your high school class graduates. Hockey and Skiing currently allow for delayed enrollment until after your 21st birthday. In other words, Hockey has an exemption now to 21. Most all other sports don't.

What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Weinke

Weinke entered Florida State University in 1997, when he was 25 years old and joined the Florida State Seminoles football team as a quarterback.

KaMiGo
11-24-2015, 02:06 PM
Which one of those doesn't mutually benefit the school? All of those are there to make sure the athlete performs at their best for the benefit of the school. If the athlete was paid, he could pay for those things on his own. If you gave the athlete the choice between the current system, and a system where they had to pay for their own tuition and housing but there would be a free market for his services, no football, baseketball or hockey players would choose the first one. And no school would offer less than the cost of tuition, because it doesn't cost them any extra money to let another person into a classroom to listen to a professor.

If college sports is a business, and people in this country worship capitalism, why are we putting a cap on what a college athlete can make? It should be a free market shouldn't it?

I guess it'll just come down to the "agree to disagree" resolution, which happens a lot with this topic.
I feel that the players provide something of great benefit to the school and the school in return provides then with something of great benefit that normal students do not get.
You feel (I think) that the only equitable way to justify the goods/services is to monetize everything and let the free market sort it out.

And for the record, there are tons of overhead costs associated with another subject attending a class.

But enough of the hijack, back to making fun of Lucia.

Ballroomblitz
11-24-2015, 02:17 PM
From the link someone was courteous enough to post concerning ages, a few at the bottom were not in order so here it is.

1) American Int'l, 22y 9m
2) Northern Michigan, 22y 6m
3) Sacred Heart, 22y 6m
4) Alabama-Huntsville, 22y 6m
5) Penn State, 22y 5m
6) Niagara, 22y 5m
7) Lake Superior, 22y 5m
8) RIT, 22y 5m
9) Robert Morris, 22y 5m
10) Army, 22y 4m
11) Minnesota State, 22y 4m
12) Clarkson, 22y 4m
13) Bentley, 22y 4m
14) Alaska-Anchorage, 22y 3m
15) Bowling Green, 22y 3m
16) St. Lawrence, 22y 2m
17) Holy Cross, 22y 2m
18) Mass.-Lowell, 22y 2m
19) Colgate, 22y 2m
20) Arizona State, 22y 2m
21) Vermont, 22y 1m
22) Bemidji State, 22y 1m
23) Michigan Tech, 22y 1m
24) Ferris State, 22y 1m
25) Alaska, 22y 1m
26) Minnesota-Duluth, 21y 11m
27) Miami, 21y 11m
28) Dartmouth, 21y 11m
29) Quinnipiac, 21y 11m
30) Air Force, 21y 11m
31) Union, 21y 10m
32) Western Michigan, 21y 10m
33) Northeastern, 21y 10m
34) Maine, 21y 10m
35) Yale, 21y 10m
36) Providence, 21y 10m
37) Merrimack, 21y 9m
38) St. Cloud State, 21y 8m
39) Brown, 21y 8m
40) Denver, 21y 8m
41) Mercyhurst, 21y 8m
42) New Hampshire, 21y 8m
43) Rensselaer, 21y 7m
44) Michigan State, 21y 7m
45) Connecticut, 21y 7m
46) Princeton, 21y 6m
47) Canisius, 21y 5m
48) Massachusetts, 21y 5m
49) Colorado College, 21y 4m
50) Ohio State, 21y 4m
51) Harvard, 21y 3m
52) Nebraska-Omaha, 21y 3m
53) Wisconsin, 21y 2m
54) Cornell, 21y 2m
55) Minnesota, 21y 2m
56) North Dakota, 21y 1m
57) Notre Dame, 21y 1m
58) Boston University, 21y 0m
59) Michigan, 20y 11m
60) Boston College, 20y 6m


Great discussion going on here.

Wisko McBadgerton
11-24-2015, 02:17 PM
Well a few things to think about. Why would the b1g do it this way. Pretty chicken...****. Second, lets say you have a kid who was held back when he was 5 and now graduates after his 18th birthday. then he does two years of juniors. he could easily turn 21 at the beginning of the semester.
third, what's to keep schools from enrolling a kid who would be 21 in the fall, in the spring, before he turns 21?

I wonder who brought it up in the first place. Also european kids typically take a year after HS before going on to higher education, so do they count too. Add 1 year of juniors and the gap year and suddenly you are too old?

Just food for thought.

I have no idea, but this is what the article says:

"The legislation calls for lowering the age limit for incoming recruits from 21 to 20 years old, or, more accurately, two years past the player's expected high school graduation date."


What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Weinke

Weinke entered Florida State University in 1997, when he was 25 years old and joined the Florida State Seminoles football team as a quarterback.

As I said, waivers can be granted. Happens for BYU students on missions, military service, and quite a bit for those trying pro baseball, which is what Weinke was doing prior to enrolling.

Perhaps the answer is just to send players on a mission to reform those heathen Canadian hockey players for a year or two and get exempted.

blackswampboy
11-24-2015, 02:45 PM
From the link someone was courteous enough to post concerning ages, a few at the bottom were not in order so here it is.

1) American Int'l, 22y 9m
2) Northern Michigan, 22y 6m
3) Sacred Heart, 22y 6m
4) Alabama-Huntsville, 22y 6m
5) Penn State, 22y 5m
6) Niagara, 22y 5m
7) Lake Superior, 22y 5m
8) RIT, 22y 5m
9) Robert Morris, 22y 5m
10) Army, 22y 4m
11) Minnesota State, 22y 4m
12) Clarkson, 22y 4m
13) Bentley, 22y 4m
14) Alaska-Anchorage, 22y 3m
15) Bowling Green, 22y 3m

Great discussion going on here.

didn't see the original link, but this data needs a source.
According to the calc at Eliteprospects, the avg. age this season for BGSU is 21.8. I suspect that the team is moving younger anyway (BGSU had a 17-year-old this season, until he bailed due to 'homesickness'), even without this legislated nonsense.

Ballroomblitz
11-24-2015, 02:51 PM
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/almanac/funfacts-ageavg.php

Here is the original link above (Post #42), do not know where they received their data from.

The other question which would be wonderful to know is how many players actually enter college as 21 years of age on start of classes.....

Bale
11-24-2015, 02:57 PM
Average age is not what we need to look at. We need count of would be ineligible players currently on each team that would have had to come in earlier. Without raw data pulling this does not sound fun.

Right, you would need to do that, but the exercise would be pointless because you'd leave a key aspect out. How many kids would have chosen a different route because they lost that year of eligibility? There is no way to count those kids with any amount of certainty. What is certain is that you would be giving roster spots to kids that currently aren't good enough. In essence, the effect of a change like this is there are less talented players on rosters making the quality of play in a large amount of teams going down. Meanwhile, those that are already g we thing the puck of the litter rise up because those older kids are no longer the great equalizer.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how this isn't a transparent attempt to weaken other teams by changing a rule that's been in place for a long time through shady at best administrative powers because the "traditional programs" aren't competing at the level that they "deserve"

purpleinnebraska
11-24-2015, 03:11 PM
I wonder who brought it up in the first place.

Just food for thought.

I'm less curious with who brought it up, and more confused as to why. Look at the CHN list of teams by age. The top 7, and 20 of the top 22 missed the NCAA field last year. Is using older players really creating an unlevel playing field? Is it worse for a kid to wait a couple of years before going to college? Looking back at the stupid stuff I did in college, a heck of a lot more of it happened the first two years than the last 2 years.

SJHovey
11-24-2015, 03:12 PM
The whole thing seems like a solution in search of a problem.

SanTropez
11-24-2015, 03:22 PM
Let's not get sidetracked from the topic of this thread, which is that Don Lucia is a crybaby beyotch.


<a href="http://imgur.com/DibtkXG"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/DibtkXG.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>

davyd83
11-24-2015, 03:23 PM
The bottom line is that the Big Ten is scared. Here they are. Supposed to be a powerhouse conference. Yet they are 6-15-8 against the WCHA, NCHC and ECAC. That pretty much tells the story right there. Tech and NMU have gone 5-2-4 against the Big Ten over the last year and a half. That's 11 games played with 2 Big Ten wins. That cannot be tolerated.