D II Any recent rule changes?

Any news on the possibility of D II deciding to have every year of Junior played beyond Prep school count as a year of lost eligibility?

I heard that this was on the table. Did this resolution pass and if so when does it come into effect? Anybody willing to speculate about what this would mean for existing D II teams and players?

Also, can it be assumed that the push for this came from Prep Schools which butter their bread to some extent on the prospect of finding a safe landing place in College hockey for their products?

[d3follower]

Re: D II Any recent rule changes?

Any news on the possibility of D II deciding to have every year of Junior played beyond Prep school count as a year of lost eligibility?

I heard that this was on the table. Did this resolution pass and if so when does it come into effect? Anybody willing to speculate about what this would mean for existing D II teams and players?

Also, can it be assumed that the push for this came from Prep Schools which butter their bread to some extent on the prospect of finding a safe landing place in College hockey for their products?

As best as I can determine, the NCAA approved that rule change on Jan 16 but what it actually says is that an athlete loses a year of eligibility for every year it engages in "organized competition" more than 12 months after graduating from high school. So basically one year of junior hockey after high school graduation and no junior hockey after a PG year in prep school. How this affects the many D2 schools playing up to D1, I do not know . .

[jerrynu26]

Re: D II Any recent rule changes?

Any news on the possibility of D II deciding to have every year of Junior played beyond Prep school count as a year of lost eligibility?

I heard that this was on the table. Did this resolution pass and if so when does it come into effect? Anybody willing to speculate about what this would mean for existing D II teams and players?

Also, can it be assumed that the push for this came from Prep Schools which butter their bread to some extent on the prospect of finding a safe landing place in College hockey for their products?

It may be a moot point. There has been talk that the DII schools will no longer be in the ECAC leagues, and will have the DII teams playing each other only.

Regarding DII schools playing p to DI, I believe they follow the DI hockey rules for hockey.

[passthepuck]

Re: D II Any recent rule changes?

It may be a moot point. There has been talk that the DII schools will no longer be in the ECAC leagues, and will have the DII teams playing each other only.

Regarding DII schools playing p to DI, I believe they follow the DI hockey rules for hockey.

When would this take effect and would they grandfather (odd term, I know, for University aged players) existing players? Certainly the calibre of player and team performance, in general, would go into free fall.

Might be a good reason to jump ship and go to a D 3 school for any players who have ability and don't want to play with kids who are still wet behind the ears against teams unencumbered by such a myopic decision.

I think that a lot of players have a lot on the line, made choices and could have gone elsewhere. Were these players informed of the possibility of this nonsense before they signed on to a D 2 school. I doubt it. Out of fairness and an abundance of caution on the legal front, I would contend that implementation should be post graduation of all effected players. Either that or those who actually care about their hockey, which will now become, at best, a game of glorified shinny, should be given the right to move locations, including, but not exclusive to, D 1, if there are any takers.

For the life of me, I find it unconscionable that the rules of engagement are changed for these players mid-stream. D 2 has signed its own death warrant as nobody is going to trust them ever again in future. If they can do this to these kids, the trust factor is gone and they have lost the moral imperative necessary to lead. Who would ever again for any reason trust an organization like that ever again? How many years ahead of voting on issues such as this do such motions need to be tabled? Since this year was the first year I heard of it, it is likely that the D 2 organization is so poorly governed that they feel free to make such sweeping changes with such far-reaching effects, in a very narrow timeframe.

What about the effected players? Time to get a lawyer, or what? Consideration had ****ed better be given.

[d3follower]

Re: D II Any recent rule changes?

The rule change takes effect as follows:

Effective Date: August 1, 2010, for individuals initially enrolling
full time in a collegiate institution on or after August 1, 2010.

Interesting tidbit: it would allow major junior products to play for a D2 school as long they had played only one-year of major junior play after high school. The rules no longer care whether or not the player was compensated during the year of post-high school play.

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

Re: D II Any recent rule changes?

In regards to the DII teams playing DI, the requirement that all (non-grandfathered) DIII playups still abide by DIII rules is a DIII regulation, and I do not believe DII has any similar legislation. As has been said, they are free to operate their DI programs as if they were a DI school, so long as their DII teams still operate under DII regulations.

At least, that is my understanding.

[d3follower]

Re: D II Any recent rule changes?

In regards to the DII teams playing DI, the requirement that all (non-grandfathered) DIII playups still abide by DIII rules is a DIII regulation, and I do not believe DII has any similar legislation. As has been said, they are free to operate their DI programs as if they were a DI school, so long as their DII teams still operate under DII regulations.

At least, that is my understanding.

I'm pretty sure that you're right as I noticed that Merrimack voted in favor of the rule change, which would be counter to its interests if it actually had to comply with the new rules vis-a-vis its hockey program . .

[hockeyfan77]

Re: D II Any recent rule changes?

The rule change takes effect as follows:



Interesting tidbit: it would allow major junior products to play for a D2 school as long they had played only one-year of major junior play after high school. The rules no longer care whether or not the player was compensated during the year of post-high school play.

Didn't NEC have a player last year that played 215 plus games in the Q????

[one_to7]

Re: D II Any recent rule changes?

Didn't NEC have a player last year that played 215 plus games in the Q????

Yes.

Hamline has a guy who also played major junior (has this semester and next year left for eligibility)

[NUProf]

Re: D II Any recent rule changes?

Didn't NEC have a player last year that played 215 plus games in the Q????

He played two games before somebody realized he had -10 seasons of eligibility left.

[one_to7]

Re: D II Any recent rule changes?

He played in more than two, I believe. There is no game for game rule for sitting out. It's one year of eligibility for each year played plus one year sitting out before joining the team, I believe.

So a player who played one year in major junior would transfer in as a sophomore, sit out a year, and join the team as a junior. That's the case for Anderson on Hamline, as far as I'm aware.

[CARDS_rule_the_Burgh]

Re: D II Any recent rule changes?

He played in more than two, I believe.

If I'm correct in my recollection that the player in question is one Jim Pouliot... USCHO credits him with 6 games in his "freshman" season.