PDA

View Full Version : The B1G's proposal and their defense of it



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

manurespreader
03-04-2016, 11:10 AM
Since no one reads the comments at the end of an article I thought it would be good to have a thread dedicated to the article by Brad Traviola.

Personally I think his facts are not correct. I would like to know how many 17 year olds there are in college hockey right this minute, since he said there were some.
Second, I wonder if he knows who Dylan Larkin is, since Mr Larkin is obviously competing in the NHL quite well as a 19 year old.

It's just a defense of something that's indefensible if you ask me.
It's the B1G saying things to the NCAA, and to other schools in the NCAA who don't have hockey and who don't know any different. In other words justifying their actions based on a false premise.

LtPowers
03-04-2016, 11:20 AM
I would like to know how many 17 year olds there are in college hockey right this minute, since he said there were some.

Presumably they turned 18 sometime during the season.


Powers &8^]

bcmsu9196
03-04-2016, 12:29 PM
Recruiting issues aside, I simply hate the six-team league. The CCHA was good hockey, the Big Ten isn't.

Split-N
03-04-2016, 12:32 PM
The arrogance and sense of entitlement shown by the B1G and the other P5 conferences (and not just in hockey) is mind-boggling.

Speed Kills
03-04-2016, 12:51 PM
First and foremost I support the proposal, and furthermore I am getting so sick and tired of people complaining about the Big Ten and everything related to it. It is what it is, deal with it.

Speed Kills
03-04-2016, 12:54 PM
Recruiting issues aside, I simply hate the six-team league. The CCHA was good hockey, the Big Ten isn't.

I too would prefer more than six teams, but creating the Big Ten hockey conference was necessary to give incentive to schools like Iowa, Illinois, etc to start up hockey programs. Give it time, more Big Ten schools will get on board eventually. Starting the Big Ten hockey conference was the single most important event in developing the long term growth of the game at the collegiate level.

Nick Papagiorgio
03-04-2016, 01:01 PM
It's a well-laid out argument. The hockey system is a delicate ecosystem. This turn to older players is corroding it.

People really need to stop and think about the far-reaching positive impacts this will have in the hockey world, regardless of the actual intentions/reasons of some programs supporting it. I know that's difficult for fans when new-found mediocrity for some (not all) of their traditionally terrible programs is at risk.

The time for mercenaries is over. Let's get back to college-aged kids playing college sports. Exceptions can be made for kids with medical redshirts or transfers.

JohnsonsJerseys
03-04-2016, 01:14 PM
This article is nothing but a pile of excuses to justify what the Big Ten wants. It has nothing to do with what is best for the "student-athlete".

18 year olds can't play against 24 year olds - there doesn't seem to be a problem in the NHL. If your 18yo players can't complete, don't play them until they are ready
Delayed enrollment is rarely a choice made by a student for academic purposes - Then stop stockpiling recruits and let them come to school as 18yo (assuming they are ready to play D-I hockey, see above)
Players need to be younger, eliminate the older players - Yeah, just like basketball and football where the Big Ten wants players to NOT play their frosh year so they can "mature" and focus on their studies... you can't have it both ways.

Lastly, if the Big 10 is so concerned about academics, how about they just recommend the student not play athletics and hit the books. Oh yeah that's right, they are not there to study, they are on campus to play hockey and get some made up degree that will keep the GPA high enough so they'll be eligible. How come we never hear about Ivy league schools having these sorts of problems, maybe they are recruiting kids that want a real degree and just happen to be good at hockey as well?
Ryan J

davyd83
03-04-2016, 01:19 PM
First and foremost I support the proposal, and furthermore I am getting so sick and tired of people complaining about the Big Ten and everything related to it. It is what it is, deal with it.

The Big Six back doored the rest of college hockey. But it doesn't matter, the proposal is likely to die before it gets to a vote.

JohnsonsJerseys
03-04-2016, 01:21 PM
Starting the Big Ten hockey conference was the single most important event in developing the long term growth of the game at the collegiate level.So then what's the NCHC's excuse for forming and trying to kill the CCHA and WCHA? That was in the best interest of hockey too I suppose... How many new programs has the NCHC developed and added to the conference to "grow the game"? I suppose the NCHC is going to add ASU and the existing member schools will pay for ASU's new rink because "that's what's best for the sport?"

Having a new hockey conference has NOTHING to do with getting new schools to start hockey. The lack of a Bi6 hockey conference had NOTHING to do with the lack of college hockey growth. Not having ~$100M to add mens hockey and another womens sport is what limits the growth of college hockey.

It is funny how many people think D-I schools don't have hockey simply because "They never thought of it before" or "they didn't have a conference". Give me a break. Its about lack of money, not lack of desire. Period.

Ryan

Scarlet
03-04-2016, 01:24 PM
First and foremost I support the proposal, and furthermore I am getting so sick and tired of people complaining about the Big Ten and everything related to it. It is what it is, deal with it.

There's two issues at hand - 1) The issue itself. It does have some merit, not denying that. I personally don't know enough about the ins and outs of recruits, ages, junior hockey, etc., to make any kind of comment but it is a situation that probably should be looked at. But 2) My concern is the fact that the B1G is pushing this through the NCAA and going around the rest of college hockey because they probably know they won't get the answer they want if they do it the appropriate way. Schools that don't have a college hockey program or know anything about the sport will be voting on this and that's not right.

Rhett Hot
03-04-2016, 01:34 PM
There's two issues at hand - 1) The issue itself. It does have some merit, not denying that. I personally don't know enough about the ins and outs of recruits, ages, junior hockey, etc., to make any kind of comment but it is a situation that probably should be looked at. But 2) My concern is the fact that the B1G is pushing this through the NCAA and going around the rest of college hockey because they probably know they won't get the answer they want if they do it the appropriate way. Schools that don't have a college hockey program or know anything about the sport will be voting on this and that's not right.

Definitely agree.

Specifically on the second point, as historically the coaches' convention in June is where proposals are debated and a consensus can be made among those who know the game. The fact that the bi6 got a head count last June they didn't like, and are now trying to ram this down the rest of college hockey's throat sets a bad precedent. Why should 10% of schools dictate the direction of the rest? and yes, I know my school is probably one of the non bi6 schools that supports this, but again, my big issue isn't about the proposal itself, rather the way it's coming about.

manurespreader
03-04-2016, 01:43 PM
Well regardless of the issues, don't we all deserve to argue this on the facts and not on suppositions. We suppose a young player isn't able to compete, but clearly he is. We suppose a lot of stuff, but why decide based on that. It's a very poor way to do business.

UML Puck Hawk
03-04-2016, 01:48 PM
We suppose a young player isn't able to compete, but clearly he is.

You may want to clarify this statement, as it could be interpreted to support either side of the debate.

SJHovey
03-04-2016, 02:40 PM
Chris Dilks' well thought out blog post on the subject.

http://www.sbncollegehockey.com/big-ten/2016/3/4/11160358/brad-traviolia-uscho-oped-big-ten-age-proposal

St. Clown
03-04-2016, 03:10 PM
Chris Dilks' well thought out blog post on the subject.

http://www.sbncollegehockey.com/big-ten/2016/3/4/11160358/brad-traviolia-uscho-oped-big-ten-age-proposal

He needs to learn that its doesn't require an apostrophe in order to show ownership. Other than that, I'd agree'.

St. Clown
03-04-2016, 03:13 PM
I too would prefer more than six teams, but creating the Big Ten hockey conference was necessary to give incentive to schools like Iowa, Illinois, etc to start up hockey programs. Give it time, more Big Ten schools will get on board eventually. Starting the Big Ten hockey conference was the single most important event in developing the long term growth of the game at the collegiate level.

You've seriously deluded yourself. The B1G Mistake didn't come about to grow college hockey, it came about to grow the B1G. Traviola doesn't care about the sport, he barely knows what a puck is let alone how to play the game. He's said as much with his 'not a hockey guy' comments that were made public from when the proposal was first made.

St. Clown
03-04-2016, 03:17 PM
From the USCHO op-ed:

Since moving into my role with Big Ten hockey this past summer, I have spent much of my time listening to coaches, school administrators and conference commissioners from across the country discuss the current state of college hockey.

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2016/03/04/brad-traviolia-modest-proposal-will-improve-college-hockeys-recruiting-environment/#ixzz41y1nJy63
Across the country entails coaches, school administrators and conference commissioners is an exhaustive list that starts in Happy Valley and ends in Minneapolis. The conference commissioners includes conferences such as the Big 12, the SEC, the ACC, Mountain West, and the list goes on and on.

ETA: I'd really like to thank USCHO for giving Mr. Traviolia the use of their site as a forum for him to speak his mind on behalf of B1G Hockey. The appalling amount of ignorance and a lack of understanding around what creates delayed enrollment situations is just so much fun!

How long until his bosses realize that he's doing nothing good for them in hockey and move him on to another sport? He' really killing what little credibility he had remaining to his name.

jsmithe
03-04-2016, 03:18 PM
This article was in my local paper from the AP last weekend. Mostly just rehashing old information, but worth a read:

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/big-ten-hockey-league-power-felt-off-ice-37226251

Shirtless Guy
03-04-2016, 03:43 PM
If you guys want facts, check out my article:
http://techhockeyguide.com/news/2016/1/24/big-ten-proposal-reasoning-doesnt-hold-up

Full set of data used:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T8MVml6uzgVqmawHgHjsKYzFF4Y165D2R3igWiuZTo4/edit?usp=drivesdk

There are currently 23 players who are under 19 years old and 30 players over the age of 25 years old (as of today).