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

purpleinnebraska
11-24-2015, 04:56 PM
Seriously, how many 18 year-olds have ever played in the NHL? Gretsky, Cindy Crosby, and Connor McDavid types don't come along too often. Crosby is a biotch, McDavid is hurt already, and Gretzky was over 30 years ago. Sure Yzerman did it (at 19) and it looks as if Larkin (19) is doing it but it is not a common thing. Oh yea, Larkin did go to Michigan for one year...

So basically that same 18 year-old could NOT go to the NHL.

Of course he could. There's no rule stopping him from going to the NHL, and that's the point. The NHL sees no reason to make a rule about this. Why do the Bi6 coaches?

willythekid
11-24-2015, 05:16 PM
This should make for a fun coaches conference come the offseason. Coaches are clearly upset by this backhanded attempt by the BI6 conference. Wonder if they considered the backlash this is getting right now?

This idea must have been floated in Naples because Sandelin is on record saying all the NCHC coaches voted against this foolishness... so this truly is backhanded bu77sh!+ by our friends in the big6... I have always enjoyed watching their conference struggle but it will be enjoyed all that much more in the years to come.

Ralph Baer
11-24-2015, 05:22 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">North Michigan head coach Walt Kyle not holding back, and I agree with a lot of what he says here. <a href="https://t.co/LchebItC2R">pic.twitter.com/LchebItC2R</a></p>&mdash; Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonCHN) <a href="https://twitter.com/MikeMcMahonCHN/status/669193942538330112">November 24, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

willythekid
11-24-2015, 06:00 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">North Michigan head coach Walt Kyle not holding back, and I agree with a lot of what he says here. <a href="https://t.co/LchebItC2R">pic.twitter.com/LchebItC2R</a></p>— Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonCHN) <a href="https://twitter.com/MikeMcMahonCHN/status/669193942538330112">November 24, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Very well said...

SJHovey
11-24-2015, 06:00 PM
Yeah but just think about how much players grow between age 24 and age 25. It's clearly a huge problem.
Exactly. This has nothing to do with the physical maturity differences between a 17 year old and a 25 year old. What Donnie has to explain is why it's safe and ok for 17 year old players to play 24 year old players, but not 25 year old players.

SJHovey
11-24-2015, 06:10 PM
If Lucia wanted to show he's Minnesota through and through, he shouldn't take the weak way out and make the BIG do his dirty work for him. Stand up and be a man like John Mariucci. Refuse to allow his gophers to play those over-age Canadian kids the way John did in the 1960's and early 70's.

If there is a real risk of danger to his young freshmen posed by these overage kids, it would be easy enough for Minnesota and the rest of the BIG to simply refuse to schedule any team that had a player on it who entered school at age 21 or older. No legislation needed. The BIG teams would then only have to worry about the NCAA tournament games against these teams, and well......

purpleinnebraska
11-24-2015, 06:34 PM
If there is a real risk of danger to his young freshmen posed by these overage kids, it would be easy enough for Minnesota and the rest of the BIG to simply refuse to schedule any team that had a player on it who entered school at age 21 or older. No legislation needed. The BIG teams would then only have to worry about the NCAA tournament games against these teams, and well......

Or, if these coaches were truly concerned about the safety of 17 and 18 year-olds in college hockey, they'd move to ban 17 and 18 year-olds. Or at least have the courage of their convictions, and tell these kids they need another year in junior hockey, and can't come play for the university until they're 19. You know, if they really thought this was a safety issue.

Muskieman
11-24-2015, 06:46 PM
REVERSE age discrimination. If passed, this could encourage more recruited players to go the OHL route and forego their college eligibility IMO. Now, that is really intelligent.

SteveO
11-24-2015, 07:01 PM
I know this discussion is in regards to D1 but just to add my .02 worth, I think the rule would have a much larger impact on DIII hockey. The proliferation of junior hockey has resulted in a very competitive, but a potentially problematic DIII climate. Recent estimates project that more than 70% of DIII play at least one year of juniors and the age projection of a senior player in DIII is now at 25-26 years old. This is a true disadvantage for true freshman players coming right out of high school.

In regards to recruiting for DI, DII or DIII, the dominant trend is to tap the Junior hockey recruiting pool like the USHL, NAHL and MJHL which offer a simple, easier and more logical way of recruiting rather than spending three years waiting for a true freshman to mature. The question is what does the NCAA want these divisions to become considering current recruiting trends and the fact that college hockey players now have the highest average age of any college sport? What used to be a competitive way for high school players to continue their careers could become a cluster of older players with a load of experience unless some age ceiling is at least put on the table for discussion. I don't think this rule will create as much of an impact on DI as on DIII, but it does remind us of days past when the norm in NCAA hockey was college hockey recruits arrived directly from HS.

Split-N
11-24-2015, 07:16 PM
IMO, the best thing that could happen to college sports in general would be for the B1G and their Power-5 brethren to go ahead and secede from the NCAA, and do whatever it wants with its taxpayer- and student activities fee-funded minor pro leagues. Then college sports can get back to being college sports and the B1G & Co. won't have to worry about the Union Colleges of the world.

manurespreader
11-24-2015, 07:32 PM
I know this discussion is in regards to D1 but just to add my .02 worth, I think the rule would have a much larger impact on DIII hockey. The proliferation of junior hockey has resulted in a very competitive, but a potentially problematic DIII climate. Recent estimates project that more than 70% of DIII play at least one year of juniors and the age projection of a senior player in DIII is now at 25-26 years old. This is a true disadvantage for true freshman players coming right out of high school.

In regards to recruiting for DI, DII or DIII, the dominant trend is to tap the Junior hockey recruiting pool like the USHL, NAHL and MJHL which offer a simple, easier and more logical way of recruiting rather than spending three years waiting for a true freshman to mature. The question is what does the NCAA want these divisions to become considering current recruiting trends and the fact that college hockey players now have the highest average age of any college sport? What used to be a competitive way for high school players to continue their careers could become a cluster of older players with a load of experience unless some age ceiling is at least put on the table for discussion. I don't think this rule will create as much of an impact on DI as on DIII, but it does remind us of days past when the norm in NCAA hockey was college hockey recruits arrived directly from HS.
I think that's a very narrow perspective which is unlikely to come true. What will certainly come true is, that if the proposal would be adopted, the smaller schools would be much less competitive, and the total number of teams playing D1 hockey would decline as the smaller programs would see no possible success and would drop out eventually. The b1g has quite a number of advantages already, do they really need more?

SteveO
11-24-2015, 07:50 PM
I think that's a very narrow perspective which is unlikely to come true. What will certainly come true is, that if the proposal would be adopted, the smaller schools would be much less competitive, and the total number of teams playing D1 hockey would decline as the smaller programs would see no possible success and would drop out eventually. The b1g has quite a number of advantages already, do they really need more?

Ok, but I'm not sure what is considered "narrow" here? Considering that the dominant trend in the current recruiting trajectory presents a potential age and experience differential, high school players wanting to opt for a college education and possess the skill set to play D1 are clearly at an increasing disadvantage unless an age ceiling is discussed. In my opinion, it's noteworthy to examine the trend of the expanding age range of recruits and more clearly define it according to NCAA parameters. No such limitation exists today, thus the reason college hockey players are older than in any other college sport. Granted, some schools will need to refocus their recruiting efforts, but in my view those adjustments will not be pandemic in DI. However, it could drastically change the recruiting landscape of DIII schools.

willythekid
11-24-2015, 08:00 PM
The only good thing coming out of this proposed legislation is now no one can deny what greedy @h0les reside inside the joke called the big10.

SteveO
11-24-2015, 08:17 PM
Using 9/1 as an arbitrary enrollment cutoff date, I figured about 100 freshmen would have been screwed out of a year of eligibility under this new policy. To the best of my knowledge, the affected student athletes would be as follows:

AIC - Trevor Cope
AIC - Marc Dubeau
AIC - Johnny Mueller
AIC - Luke Rodgers
Air Force - Shane Starrett
Air Force - Zach Yoder
Air Force - Billy Christopolous
Air Force - Evan Giesler
Air Force - Matt Serratore
Alabama-Huntsville - Adam Wilcox
Alabama-Huntsville - Jetlan Houcher
Alaska-Anchorage - Nathan Renouf
Alaska-Anchorage - Jonah Renouf
Alaska-Anchorage - Mason Mitchell
Alaska-Anchorage - Alex Jackstad
Alaska-Anchorage - Cam Amantea
Alaska-Fairbanks - Chad Staley
Alaska-Fairbanks - Chase McMurphy
Arizona State - Anthony Croston
Arizona State - Joe Lappin
Arizona State - Louie Rowe
Arizona State - Jack Rowe
Arizona State - Jordan Masters
Arizona State - Cody Gylling
Bemidji State - Dillon Eichstadt
Bemidji State - T.J. Roo
Bentley - T.J. Dumonceaux
Bentley - Tanner Jago
Bowling Green - Stephen Baylis
Brown - Alex Brink
Canisius - Cody Boyd
Canisius - Felix Chamberland
Canisius - James Mazza
Clarkson - Marley Quince
Colorado College - Jake Emilio
Colorado College - Ben Israel
Dartmouth - Karan Toor
Denver - Colin Staub
Denver - Sean Mostrom
Ferris State - Jacob Hetz
Holy Cross - Nick Petrella
Lake Superior State - Josh Nenadal
Lake Superior State - Jake Hand
Lake Superior State - Josh Henke
Lake Superior State - Tanner Karty
Maine - Dane Gibson
Maine - Justin Rai
Mass-Lowell - Jake Townsend
Mass-Lowell - Avni Berisha
Mass-Lowell - Niklas Folin
Mercyhurst - Nathan Ferreiro
Mercyhurst - Adam Carlson
Mercyhurst - Taylor Best
Merrimack - Alex Carle
Michigan - Chad Catt
Minnesota State - Mankato - Alec Vanko
Minnesota State - Mankato - Max Coatta
Minnesota State - Mankato - Ryan Schwalbe
Minnesota-Duluth - Parker MacKay
Minnesota-Duluth - Nick Deery
Minnesota-Duluth - Adam Johnson
Niagara - Devin Campbell
Niagara - Sean King
Niagara - Guillaume Therien
North Dakota - Danys Chartrand
Northeastern - Patrick Schule
Northeastern - Sam Kurker
Northern Michigan - Mathias Israelsson
Northern Michigan - Anthony Paskaruk
Northern Michigan - Connor Frantti
Northern Michigan - Cal Hofford
Ohio State - Freddy Gerard
Ohio State - Sasha Larocque
Ohio State - Mason Jobst
Penn State - Chris Funkey
Penn State - Vince Pedrie
Quinnipiac - Kevin Duane
RIT - Alex Roberts
Robert Morris - Kyle Horsman
Robert Morris - Brandon Watt
RPI - Tom Grant
Sacred Heart - Adam Durkee
Sacred Heart - Zach DeConcilys
Sacred Heart - Brett Magnus
Sacred Heart - Jackson Barliat
Sacred Heart - Mike Crocock
Sacred Heart - Zach Sabatini
St. Cloud State - David Zevnik
St. Lawrence - Arthur Brey
Union - Sebastian Vidmar
Union - Joe Young
Vermont - Conor O'Neill
Western Michigan - Mitch Makin
Western Michigan - Collin Olson
Western Michigan - Griffen Molino
Western Michigan - Mat Iacopelli
Wisconsin - Patrick Sexton

There are most definitely errors and omissions.

Thanks for this, very good work sir! Considering there are approximately 1400+ NCAA D1 college hockey players, this looks like a relatively low percentage of about 6-7%.

uaafanblog
11-24-2015, 08:22 PM
You view a paid (or mostly paid) college education as nothing? If a guy gets an 80% ride at SCSU and stays 4 years, that's worth about $71K, it ain't nothing, and it ain't semantics.

It doesn't cost SCSU 71K though. You can pretend all you want that said player received 71K in scholarships but the actual cost of that scholarship to the university is FAR FAR lower.

And that categorically is not income. Getting paid is having a paycheck/cash put in your hands/deposited in your bank account.

UML Puck Hawk
11-24-2015, 08:27 PM
Thanks for this, very good work sir! Considering there are approximately 1400+ NCAA D1 college hockey players, this looks like a relatively low percentage of about 6-7%.

But if you were to assume this years class would appear similar to the last 3 (doesn't seem unlikely) we are now talking about 28% of players not being eligible. Obviously it won't be that extreme, but you can imagine the talent discrepancy between those teams that can recruit D1 caliber 18 year olds and those who add these 7% a year early is going to lead to less parity in the game than we currently experience. So the question is would you prefer a sport that at least designs for parity (ala the NFL, NHL with their hard salary caps), or would you prefer sports that ignore parity and reward primarily the large market teams (the MLB).

We already fall somewhere between the two extremes, and in my opinion that leads to a quality product on the ice year round. Not sure how this proposal makes the games more entertaining. Don't really enjoy watching blowouts. Blowouts don't grow the sport

Biddco
11-24-2015, 08:40 PM
This idea must have been floated in Naples because Sandelin is on record saying all the NCHC coaches voted against this foolishness... so this truly is backhanded bu77sh!+ by our friends in the big6... I have always enjoyed watching their conference struggle but it will be enjoyed all that much more in the years to come.
I'm impressed with the backlash this is getting. I'm intrigued to find out what Lucia or other coaches responses will be on this subject.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">North Michigan head coach Walt Kyle not holding back, and I agree with a lot of what he says here. <a href="https://t.co/LchebItC2R">pic.twitter.com/LchebItC2R</a></p> Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonCHN) <a href="https://twitter.com/MikeMcMahonCHN/status/669193942538330112">November 24, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Well stated by Mr. Kyle. I was impressed to see him come out with such strong statements. It says a lot about how coaches feel about this move.

Stauber1
11-24-2015, 08:45 PM
This idea must have been floated in Naples because Sandelin is on record saying all the NCHC coaches voted against this foolishness... so this truly is backhanded bu77sh!+ by our friends in the big6...

This is a bit rich coming from a UND fan, what, 4 years removed?

SteveO
11-24-2015, 08:51 PM
But if you were to assume this years class would appear similar to the last 3 (doesn't seem unlikely) we are now talking about 28% of players not being eligible. Obviously it won't be that extreme, but you can imagine the talent discrepancy between those teams that can recruit D1 caliber 18 year olds and those who add these 7% a year early is going to lead to less parity in the game than we currently experience. So the question is would you prefer a sport that at least designs for parity (ala the NFL, NHL with their hard salary caps), or would you prefer sports that ignore parity and reward primarily the large market teams (the MLB).

We already fall somewhere between the two extremes, and in my opinion that leads to a quality product on the ice year round. Not sure how this proposal makes the games more entertaining. Don't really enjoy watching blowouts. Blowouts don't grow the sport

Smaller schools often do not possess as much recruiting capital as larger schools, agree with you there. But typically 18 YO D1 recruits are not huge contributors their first or even second year. So I would expect the parity differential, as you've explained it, to be generally speaking statistically insignificant. IF the proposal is ratified by the NCAA, they'll most likely announce an effective date far enough in advance for D1 programs to make adjustments. I recall recruiting adjustments when the NHL CBA changed in 2006-07 which drastically affected the present and recruiting rosters of some of the larger hockey schools that tend to recruit top NHL prospects. What we've seen is over time, recruiting programs calibrate to new policies without diminishing the on-ice product and quality of play.

giwan
11-24-2015, 08:52 PM
I know this discussion is in regards to D1 but just to add my .02 worth, I think the rule would have a much larger impact on DIII hockey. The proliferation of junior hockey has resulted in a very competitive, but a potentially problematic DIII climate. Recent estimates project that more than 70% of DIII play at least one year of juniors and the age projection of a senior player in DIII is now at 25-26 years old. This is a true disadvantage for true freshman players coming right out of high school.

In regards to recruiting for DI, DII or DIII, the dominant trend is to tap the Junior hockey recruiting pool like the USHL, NAHL and MJHL which offer a simple, easier and more logical way of recruiting rather than spending three years waiting for a true freshman to mature. The question is what does the NCAA want these divisions to become considering current recruiting trends and the fact that college hockey players now have the highest average age of any college sport? What used to be a competitive way for high school players to continue their careers could become a cluster of older players with a load of experience unless some age ceiling is at least put on the table for discussion. I don't think this rule will create as much of an impact on DI as on DIII, but it does remind us of days past when the norm in NCAA hockey was college hockey recruits arrived directly from HS.

The norm of HS directly to college hockey? I think not.