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

ScoobyDoo
11-25-2015, 10:46 AM
Those of us who were against a Big 10 hockey conference all along are proven right every single day.

The Exiled One
11-25-2015, 10:59 AM
It seems like this debate is starting to get to the heart of the matter. Disagree with me if you like, but it seems like a consensus has established that...

• It is clearly a selfish act meant to benefit higher-profile schools who tend to recruit high-profile, high-skill players. (The end result being that less skilled players will be brought in earlier and with less size/experience.) If we concede this point, then we can ignore the "benefit to the player" arguments as they become irrelevant.
• It was an underhanded move utilizing privileged legislative rights to circumvent the will of the majority. As far as I know, nobody is debating this.
• The NCAA is not a naturally democratic organization but rather an affiliation that favors big revenue schools. Smaller revenue schools should and can strive for power but should not pretend that they are equals in any way, shape, or form. (I take issue with this point, but I'll stipulate for the moment.)

What this boils down to is whether the policy is good or bad for the long term success of NCAA hockey. Success in this statement must be defined. To me, it means long term stability and/or growth. For stability and growth, I believe parity and exposure are important. Reducing parity is obviously the goal of the proposal. With less chance of success, popularity at smaller schools will decrease, hence decreasing interest. With fewer NCAA free agents making it to the NHL, exposure will decrease. Junior players without a spot on a D1 roster heading into their final year will skew towards the CHL or other minor professional leagues, thus decreasing the quality of the league as a whole and resulting in decreased interest.

I've seen some arguments for disparity being good for NCAA hockey, but I still find that logic faulty. IMHO, it's up to the proponents to either 1) Make the case that the policy is good for NCAA hockey; or 2) Admit that they care more about increasing the odds of their team to win a championship than improving NCAA hockey.

UML Puck Hawk
11-25-2015, 11:23 AM
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...

You can have Notre Dame and UConn right now.

Quinnipiac and RPI we are prepared to expedite the application process, just sign here: ______________________ and all the rights and privileges of a member of Hockey East can be yours.

SJHovey
11-25-2015, 11:23 AM
It seems like this debate is starting to get to the heart of the matter. Disagree with me if you like, but it seems like a consensus has established that...

• It is clearly a selfish act meant to benefit higher-profile schools who tend to recruit high-profile, high-skill players. (The end result being that less skilled players will be brought in earlier and with less size/experience.) If we concede this point, then we can ignore the "benefit to the player" arguments as they become irrelevant.
• It was an underhanded move utilizing privileged legislative rights to circumvent the will of the majority. As far as I know, nobody is debating this.
• The NCAA is not a naturally democratic organization but rather an affiliation that favors big revenue schools. Smaller revenue schools should and can strive for power but should not pretend that they are equals in any way, shape, or form. (I take issue with this point, but I'll stipulate for the moment.)

What this boils down to is whether the policy is good or bad for the long term success of NCAA hockey. Success in this statement must be defined. To me, it means long term stability and/or growth. For stability and growth, I believe parity and exposure are important. Reducing parity is obviously the goal of the proposal. With less chance of success, popularity at smaller schools will decrease, hence decreasing interest. With fewer NCAA free agents making it to the NHL, exposure will decrease. Junior players without a spot on a D1 roster heading into their final year will skew towards the CHL or other minor professional leagues, thus decreasing the quality of the league as a whole and resulting in decreased interest.

I've seen some arguments for disparity being good for NCAA hockey, but I still find that logic faulty. IMHO, it's up to the proponents to either 1) Make the case that the policy is good for NCAA hockey; or 2) Admit that they care more about increasing the odds of their team to win a championship than improving NCAA hockey.
Very good post.

UML Puck Hawk
11-25-2015, 11:26 AM
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.

Had the opportunity to work with a few BYU students my last couple summers and its not actually a religious obligation so to speak. The way it was explained to me was to receive what amounts to "in-state (read the church pays for most of their education at BYU) tuition" at BYU they need to go on a mission. Every one of them have raved about the experience. But I do not believe it is actually an obligation (not sure if BYU gives scholarships for athletics at all, maybe its linked that way?)

UML Puck Hawk
11-25-2015, 11:37 AM
I've seen some arguments for disparity being good for NCAA hockey, but I still find that logic faulty. IMHO, it's up to the proponents to either 1) Make the case that the policy is good for NCAA hockey; or 2) Admit that they care more about increasing the odds of their team to win a championship than improving NCAA hockey.

The only argument for the talent disparity being a good thing I have seen is that "name" schools attract a television audience that may not tune in for the rest of the schools in the country. TV $$$'s lead to more power schools adding, which grows the sport.

Wisko McBadgerton
11-25-2015, 11:40 AM
Had the opportunity to work with a few BYU students my last couple summers and its not actually a religious obligation so to speak. The way it was explained to me was to receive what amounts to "in-state (read the church pays for most of their education at BYU) tuition" at BYU they need to go on a mission. Every one of them have raved about the experience. But I do not believe it is actually an obligation (not sure if BYU gives scholarships for athletics at all, maybe its linked that way?)

It is not mandatory. Qualified individuals however, receive a "call to serve" from the LDS president, which is close enough legally.

Scarlet
11-25-2015, 12:30 PM
I think it will be very interesting if this does go through, and in 10 years, these smaller schools are still winning and managing their rosters with these older players losing a year of eligibility based on age. What will the B1G do then?

Shirtless Guy
11-25-2015, 12:32 PM
without complete analysis of the players and their specific circumstances and complete knowledge of redshirt players here is what I have based on a cutoff date of 9/1 each year the WCHA has the following breakdown:

18 yo (12, 4.4%)
19 yo (46, 16.7%)
20 yo (113, 41.1%)
21 yo+ (104, 37.8%)

Patronick
11-25-2015, 01:13 PM
NCAA policy shouldn't be driven by whether or not one, or an extra handful of guys, make it to the NHL.

Nor should it be driven by a small minority of coaches using sleazy and underhanded tactics to get what they want, purely because it gives them a competitive advantage. But here we are.

Wisko McBadgerton
11-25-2015, 03:52 PM
without complete analysis of the players and their specific circumstances and complete knowledge of redshirt players here is what I have based on a cutoff date of 9/1 each year the WCHA has the following breakdown:

18 yo (12, 4.4%)
19 yo (46, 16.7%)
20 yo (113, 41.1%)
21 yo+ (104, 37.8%)

I appreciate that this took some time to look through. Wisconsin has 5 players that I think would fall into this age category, but only one that I think it would make a difference for. If all WCHA teams were like that, then there would be about 20-21 players affected. Which is completely not what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't know what to make of it. But as we speak, I trust someone is in their mom's basement dutifully researching every single player in the NCAA to get the answer!

Wisko McBadgerton
11-25-2015, 03:55 PM
Nor should it be driven by a small minority of coaches using sleazy and underhanded tactics to get what they want, purely because it gives them a competitive advantage. But here we are.

I don't know... isn't that pretty much how NCAA Football (and to a slightly lesser extent, Basketball) works?

joecct
11-25-2015, 04:03 PM
40 years ago when I was an undergrad at Clarkson, the freshman were either 18 or 19 (though Dave Taylor was 17 when he played his 1st varsity game). US players generally went an extra year in prep school (hello Northwood!) to get even with the Canadian kids who had grade 13. It was the same at all the other ECAC schools and the few CCHA (St. Louis, BG and WMU) that we played. US Junior leagues were non existent.

Somewhere along the line some enterprising college coach realized that he could play (and win!) with older players. If the program was successful (and, if it is who I think it was, it was very successful) then in the monkey see, monkey do world of sports other schools began to copy this school.

Ah - but since US kids are 18 when they graduate from college and now colleges are recruiting 20 year olds, what happens to the poor US waifs? Voila! The USHL, followed soon by the NAHL and then the EJHL. Without the expansion of recruiting 20 year olds, US junior leagues would be a lot smaller.

FYI, IIHF junior leagues are U20, which means 20 year olds are not playing. North American junior leagues are 20U.

UML
11-25-2015, 05:46 PM
So all this basically means is that the big ten will be in control of making the rules for NCAA D1 hockey moving forward.

Shirtless Guy
11-25-2015, 06:06 PM
I appreciate that this took some time to look through. Wisconsin has 5 players that I think would fall into this age category, but only one that I think it would make a difference for. If all WCHA teams were like that, then there would be about 20-21 players affected. Which is completely not what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't know what to make of it. But as we speak, I trust someone is in their mom's basement dutifully researching every single player in the NCAA to get the answer!

I'm in my own basement right now, and I hope to work through every team...just started with my own league. It takes an awful lot of time with not everything being located on either eliteprospects (missing class) or uscho (missing DOB).

manurespreader
11-25-2015, 06:43 PM
So if you are the B1g and your ratings are dropping and you can find a straw man to blame it on,
And you can make more money and win more by getting the rule changed. why not. Makes sense to me.

Wisko McBadgerton
11-25-2015, 06:56 PM
Dan Myers spoke to Don Lucia today:

http://danmyers.blogspot.com/2015/11/don-lucia-opines-on-all-things.html

The Exiled One
11-25-2015, 07:23 PM
Dan Myers spoke to Don Lucia today:

http://danmyers.blogspot.com/2015/11/don-lucia-opines-on-all-things.html
“So they are looking out for their program, and I am looking out for ours."

There it is. The rest is window dressing.

Scarlet
11-25-2015, 07:26 PM
The bigger issue for me is that they went to the NCAA and did an end run around the rest of college hockey. People who have nothing to do with college hockey are going to be making a decision that will change the landscape of the game. That is a really crappy way to go about bringing this change.

St. Clown
11-25-2015, 07:43 PM
40 years ago when I was an undergrad at Clarkson, the freshman were either 18 or 19 (though Dave Taylor was 17 when he played his 1st varsity game). US players generally went an extra year in prep school (hello Northwood!) to get even with the Canadian kids who had grade 13. It was the same at all the other ECAC schools and the few CCHA (St. Louis, BG and WMU) that we played. US Junior leagues were non existent.

Somewhere along the line some enterprising college coach realized that he could play (and win!) with older players. If the program was successful (and, if it is who I think it was, it was very successful) then in the monkey see, monkey do world of sports other schools began to copy this school.

Ah - but since US kids are 18 when they graduate from college and now colleges are recruiting 20 year olds, what happens to the poor US waifs? Voila! The USHL, followed soon by the NAHL and then the EJHL. Without the expansion of recruiting 20 year olds, US junior leagues would be a lot smaller.

FYI, IIHF junior leagues are U20, which means 20 year olds are not playing. North American junior leagues are 20U.

Back in the day, Minnesota refused to play Denver because they started placing older players on their roster. It's something that gets brought up at least once per season by the media, it seams. It's a funny thing to think about with them both being WCHA at the time, yet there was a long stretch of years they didn't play. DU did quite well for itself during that time.