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

SteveO
11-24-2015, 09:03 PM
The norm of HS directly to college hockey? I think not.

Well, if you come to Mariucci on the U of MN campus, I can show you lots of guys in the team pics back in the 70s that I went to HS with who went directly from my HS to the Gophers. I could be wrong on the national scope of that phenomena, but that's what I recall consistently seeing over 35 years ago.

Stauber1
11-24-2015, 09:07 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?

Talk about a narrow perspective...

I'm not defending this, but the apocalyptic repercussions being floated by a few are pretty fantastical. As is the claim that Lucia just couldn't compete, and so had to change the rules. He runs a program that has won their last 4 regular season titles (including the last 2 of the old-WCHA), has been to 2 of the past 4 Frozen Fours and played in the National Championship game just 2 years ago. Get a grip.

The biggest issue here isn't the proposal itself. This is something that's been kicked around for a while, something fans from a myriad of teams enjoy complaining about, and something that does have some virtue. Which isn't to say I'm on board, or want it to happen....just that the proposal itself is not radical or without precedent. Hell, the average age of D1 men's college hockey players is what is outside the status quo for college athletics.

No, the issue is the manner in which this proposal is being strong-armed through the process. It is either egotistical or sneaky and underhanded. I read it as being heavily on the egotistical side.

I'll admit my bias as a Gopher fan for those who don't already know that, but I'll also admit there are things about Lucia I don't like or rub me the wrong way. Those things don't include greed, cheating or underhanded tactics. People who want to attribute those things to him either are unfamiliar or have an axe to grind. Lucia is, however, arrogant and a bit self-righteous. And that is what I see at play here. He thinks he knows best, so to hell with what the rest of the college hockey community thinks.

And for that I hope this proposal flames out.

The Exiled One
11-24-2015, 09:15 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
Right, it's probably more like 20%. For Sacred Heart, it's 100% of their freshmen this year. For Alaska-Anchorage, it's five of eight including their 4th highest scorer.

This policy doesn't strike at the heart of D1 hockey, it decimates the bottom first but sends ripples upward.

joecct
11-24-2015, 09:15 PM
If Sean Pickett and other old timers are still on the boards, was it Sean Walsh who pioneered the 21 year old freshman?

Vaportrail
11-24-2015, 09:17 PM
Last four National Champions are currently under average age.

QUAlum2004
11-24-2015, 09:31 PM
If I am the little guys (conference other than the Big 10 and those in support of them) I propose legislation that a conference must have 8 members for an automatic tournament berth and see how the Big 10 responds with that.

Stauber1
11-24-2015, 09:35 PM
If I am the little guys (conference other than the Big 10 and those in support of them) I propose legislation that a conference must have 8 members for an automatic tournament berth and see how the Big 10 responds with that.

By allowing affiliate members and poaching from other conferences?

Shirtless Guy
11-24-2015, 09:44 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%.

That's just freshman, not the entire rosters... So that's 100 out of approximately 350+

davyd83
11-24-2015, 09:48 PM
Well, if you come to Mariucci on the U of MN campus, I can show you lots of guys in the team pics back in the 70s that I went to HS with who went directly from my HS to the Gophers. I could be wrong on the national scope of that phenomena, but that's what I recall consistently seeing over 35 years ago.
Look at North Dakota or Michigan Tech or Northern Michigan or even Michigan c. 1980. Which of them were primarily HS to college teams. Look at the Gopher roster today. There's only one direct HS to college player. 25 years working in the game and I've never seen a team whose primary feeder was high schools.

purpleinnebraska
11-24-2015, 09:50 PM
Talk about a narrow perspective...

I'm not defending this, but the apocalyptic repercussions being floated by a few are pretty fantastical. As is the claim that Lucia just couldn't compete, and so had to change the rules. He runs a program that has won their last 4 regular season titles (including the last 2 of the old-WCHA), has been to 2 of the past 4 Frozen Fours and played in the National Championship game just 2 years ago. Get a grip.

The biggest issue here isn't the proposal itself. This is something that's been kicked around for a while, something fans from a myriad of teams enjoy complaining about, and something that does have some virtue. Which isn't to say I'm on board, or want it to happen....just that the proposal itself is not radical or without precedent. Hell, the average age of D1 men's college hockey players is what is outside the status quo for college athletics.

No, the issue is the manner in which this proposal is being strong-armed through the process. It is either egotistical or sneaky and underhanded. I read it as being heavily on the egotistical side.

I'll admit my bias as a Gopher fan for those who don't already know that, but I'll also admit there are things about Lucia I don't like or rub me the wrong way. Those things don't include greed, cheating or underhanded tactics. People who want to attribute those things to him either are unfamiliar or have an axe to grind. Lucia is, however, arrogant and a bit self-righteous. And that is what I see at play here. He thinks he knows best, so to hell with what the rest of the college hockey community thinks.

And for that I hope this proposal flames out.

There's a lot of thoughtful stuff here, and certainly I'd agree that at the heart of all this, there is an issue with some virtue, as you say. But that issue -keeping a guy in juniors and away from college for an extra year, for no reason other than to make him a bigger, stronger, better hockey player- is something ALL TEAMS do. Even the top-notch programs do it (Kloos, Sheehy, Schierhorn, on the Gophers, and undoubtedly many guys on the Michigans, BCs, etc.), but the difference is, they are stashing 18 year-olds in juniors until they're 19 year-olds. Those players are unlikely to forego the top-notch program for a perceived lesser program if the wait is only one year. But if that was pushed to a second year? Those guys would go somewhere else. And that calculation trickles down, depending on how sought after the player is and how prestigious the university's hockey program is. So who are the 21 year-old freshmen? Generally, the lower-rated players, going to the less prestigious hockey schools. And these are the people we want to crack down on?

Dirty
11-24-2015, 09:50 PM
By allowing affiliate members and poaching from other conferences?

Woohoo! UND is going to the Big Ten!!!! See ya later, lamewads! NCHC SUCKS!!!!!!

SteveO
11-24-2015, 10:01 PM
That's just freshman, not the entire rosters... So that's 100 out of approximately 350+

Understood, but serves as a reasonable ad hoc facsimile of what the freshman % might look like which was my point. IF the non-partisan group of athletic directors, faculty athletic representatives, senior administrators and conference commissioners who have little affiliation with D1 hockey schools ratify it, current rosters will not be depleted, but player eligibility will be calibrated by an effective date determined by the NCAA. Will it pass? Given the overwhelming disapproval, I have my doubts. I can see the NCAA throwing the legislation back to be reworked.

SteveO
11-24-2015, 10:02 PM
Look at North Dakota or Michigan Tech or Northern Michigan or even Michigan c. 1980. Which of them were primarily HS to college teams. Look at the Gopher roster today. There's only one direct HS to college player. 25 years working in the game and I've never seen a team whose primary feeder was high schools.

I'm going back further than that...therefore general relativity. ;)

Stauber1
11-24-2015, 10:04 PM
There's a lot of thoughtful stuff here, and certainly I'd agree that at the heart of all this, there is an issue with some virtue, as you say. But that issue -keeping a guy in juniors and away from college for an extra year, for no reason other than to make him a bigger, stronger, better hockey player- is something ALL TEAMS do. Even the top-notch programs do it (Kloos, Sheehy, Schierhorn, on the Gophers, and undoubtedly many guys on the Michigans, BCs, etc.), but the difference is, they are stashing 18 year-olds in juniors until they're 19 year-olds. Those players are unlikely to forego the top-notch program for a perceived lesser program if the wait is only one year. But if that was pushed to a second year? Those guys would go somewhere else. And that calculation trickles down, depending on how sought after the player is and how prestigious the university's hockey program is. So who are the 21 year-old freshmen? Generally, the lower-rated players, going to the less prestigious hockey schools. And these are the people we want to crack down on?

Hey, I agree with you, and like I said I'm not really on board with this proposal. I was simply trying to say that just because you have interests that I don't, and therefore I don't place much weight to them, it's not the same as actively trying to sabotage you in order to improve my own position.

I'm not trying to give Lucia or the Big10 a pass on this, because like I said I really detest the manner in which this is being strong-armed through the process. But the motivations being ascribed to this by a lot of folks are illogical and faulty.

Stauber1
11-24-2015, 10:10 PM
Woohoo! UND is going to the Big Ten!!!! See ya later, lamewads! NCHC SUCKS!!!!!!
I don't think UND would pass the institutional litmus test, sorry to burst your bubble. But if this idea actual gained traction (and it won't) and then somehow managed to work it's way through the bureaucracy (which it wouldn't) I don't think it would be too hard for the Big10 to find 2 schools to join them.

Sigh....why do I respond to Dirty...

Wisko McBadgerton
11-24-2015, 10:14 PM
Right, that's what I'm referring to. You can write a policy for religious accommodation, but not specific to Mormons. I could have stated that more clearly. Applied fairly, anybody who takes time off away from their sport to perform philanthropic work would likely be granted a similar exemption.

Of course, that kind of defeats the purpose of fixing the "age-gap problem" unless that's not the problem being fixed by this policy.

The NCAA does not have to give an exception for someone to do philanthropic work. (although they may in some cases if they deem appropriate) The basis of this practice is nondiscrimination against an individual's religious creed, which is specifically spelled out in federal law. Individual Mormons, in this case, have a religious obligation to go on a mission. I have no idea if a case has ever been filed, but it's clear the NCAA would lose a discrimination suit if they withheld eligibility from a religious class or an individual on the basis of their religious obligations. Philanthropists are not protected in this manner.

purpleinnebraska
11-24-2015, 10:15 PM
Hey, I agree with you, and like I said I'm not really on board with this proposal. I was simply trying to say that just because you have interests that I don't, and therefore I don't place much weight to them, it's not the same as actively trying to sabotage you in order to improve my own position.

I'm not trying to give Lucia or the Big10 a pass on this, because like I said I really detest the manner in which this is being strong-armed through the process. But the motivations being ascribed to this by a lot of folks are illogical and faulty.

True, and I would admit that much of the Lucia criticism on this thread has been over the top. He has certainly been very fair in his dealings with Kato since the WCHA breakup, keeping us on the schedule and playing down here, and taking a lead role in the creation of the North Star Cup. He's been a promoter of D1 hockey, particularly in Minnesota, and any charge that he's trying to destroy college hockey is way over the top.

Now Michigan, on the other hand, has actively tried to screw over all of their old CCHA and in-state teams. And Wisconsin is still Wisconsin. I'll remain less generous to those schools.

Wisko McBadgerton
11-24-2015, 10:18 PM
But the motivations being ascribed to this by a lot of folks are illogical and faulty.

Clearly Lucia is worried Sacred Heart or Alaska-Anchorage are going to win a title before he does again.

The Exiled One
11-24-2015, 10:41 PM
The NCAA does not have to give an exception for someone to do philanthropic work. (although they may in some cases if they deem appropriate) The basis of this practice is nondiscrimination against an individual's religious creed, which is specifically spelled out in federal law. Individual Mormons, in this case, have a religious obligation to go on a mission. I have no idea if a case has ever been filed, but it's clear the NCAA would lose a discrimination suit if they withheld eligibility from a religious class or an individual on the basis of their religious obligations. Philanthropists are not protected in this manner.
Hence the word "likely". My best guess is that somebody spending a couple years in the Peace Corps would get an exemption as well.

MGoBlueHockey
11-24-2015, 11:59 PM
As if the on-ice embarrassments weren't enough.

I hate Jim Delany. This is the same out of touch ****** that invited Rutgers to the conference thinking it would work out, and the same idiot that has called for the return of freshmen ineligibility.