Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    Originally posted by techtodenver View Post
    Also In Football you can pull a Brandon Weeden and play College Football
    You certainly can but the point is those situations are few and far between in college football.


    Originally posted by techtodenver View Post
    In hockey as others have said, major junior plays a huge part in all of this. I guess that’s just ignore by people that love to fit their own agenda.
    What?

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

      Originally posted by Lemonade View Post
      Excellent question and I am not sure. Implementing an redshirt system for hockey may work. Players gets maybe 10-14 games and still retain 4 years of eligibility makes a lot of sense.
      I think college hockey already has the same redshirt system as the other sports, except it's rarely used because the players spend additional time playing junior hockey instead. The majority of redshirts in hockey are either medical or transfers.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

        Originally posted by Lemonade View Post
        On average college students are 18-23 are they not?
        In 2016, 16.2% of college students in the US were between the ages of 25 and 29. (source: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/...t17_303.40.asp)

        In the 2018–19 NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season, 7.1% of the players were born before 1995. (source: Elite Prospects and some arithmetic)
        Last edited by redwing61; 04-22-2019, 04:33 PM. Reason: clarity

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

          Originally posted by Lemonade View Post
          Point is what reasoning is there to have hockey players delay college arrival for 2 years and not other sports.
          Because the coaches can! There is no where for the coaches to put 18 and 19 year old football or basketball players that will further their development. Some of you are picking unusual circumstances to justify your position. The fact is that the majority of the players are much better hockey players after a year or two of junior hockey. The junior hockey system is a unique opportunity for NCAA coaches to improve the product on the ice. NCAA hockey would NOT be as good if it was full of 18 year old freshman that have never played beyond high school hockey. The product is improved by using Junior hockey to develop the players first.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

            Originally posted by lemonade View Post
            college sports should be for college age people..thats 18-23. Ncaa is not meant to be a minor league for the nhl. There is still not one viable reason why kids should have to spend 2 years playing junior hockey after high school to then move onto college. If the ncaa required players to enroll in schools within 1 year after hs graduation there would still be a level playing field. Players would all be closer in age and the product on the ice would be fantastic. There is no other ncaa sport that has this broken model of ncaa hockey. Ncaa football brings in $1.1 billion in revenue and true freshman show up and play. In fact the qb of the ncaa champions was a true freshman. Ncaa football doesnt say kids need more "development" - the interesting part is that football players may have played in less than 100 games their entire life before entering college while hockey players would on average probably have played about 750 games yet still need development? No issues with physical strength in ncaa football...but in hockey they need get stronger and faster...its all bull. Graduate high school and go to college is how it should be.
            better hockey!

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by redwing61 View Post
              In 2016, 16.2% of college students in the US were between the ages of 25 and 29. (source: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/...t17_303.40.asp)

              In the 2018–19 NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season, 7.1% of the players were 25+ years old. (source: Elite Prospects and some arithmetic)
              And we're done here folks.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by TheRevengeance View Post
                And we're done here folks.
                No kidding. What a ridiculous premise.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                  Originally posted by redwing61 View Post
                  In 2016, 16.2% of college students in the US were between the ages of 25 and 29. (source: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/...t17_303.40.asp)

                  In the 2018–19 NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season, 7.1% of the players were born before 1995. (source: Elite Prospects and some arithmetic)
                  I suspected this was the case; I'm so glad someone did the 38 seconds of work to find the data.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                    Poster says most college kids are between 18-23. Someone points out that 16% are between 25 and 29...and somehow that is supposed to dispute that most college kids are 18-23.

                    Also, I have no idea what 7% of players being 25+ proves other than that's 7% more than there should be. If you're somehow saying it proves it's not a big problem, only Mason Jobst stands out as being 25. It's not taking into account 24 year old seniors or players who leave for pro hockey at 23 etc. And obviously doesn't factor in 21 year old freshmen. But hey, numbers! Ya!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by J.D. View Post
                      Poster says most college kids are between 18-23. Someone points out that 16% are between 25 and 29...and somehow that is supposed to dispute that most college kids are 18-23.

                      Also, I have no idea what 7% of players being 25+ proves other than that's 7% more than there should be. If you're somehow saying it proves it's not a big problem, only Mason Jobst stands out as being 25. It's not taking into account 24 year old seniors or players who leave for pro hockey at 23 etc. And obviously doesn't factor in 21 year old freshmen. But hey, numbers! Ya!
                      The point is that hockey players aren't anywhere near a radically different age group as some here want you to believe.

                      This is meaningless because the rules aren't changing and we certainly aren't making any difference arguing about it. What's nauseating is the crocodile tears from blue blood fans pretending they care about players' welfare or some such nonsense.

                      FWIW, WMU is one of the younger teams in the country these days. It's the program's choice like any other and has its upsides and downsides. That's not a reason to handcuff other programs when 85% of the college hockey programs are against it.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by UMLFan View Post
                        So I see the supporters of the "big" college hockey schools continue to complain because they're not winning as much as they used to. Must be tough stacking your teams with NHL draft picks.

                        Maybe we should bring back DII hockey. Leave about 10 programs in DI (your BC, BU, Minnesota, etc) that can fill up with 18 year olds, and let the schools that are starting to actually upstage them now go to DII. That should make those big schools happy.

                        BTW, my list of three schools I noted ... all three have had their stacked programs lose to teams that are older, and had their coaches complained about it.
                        Do you see BC complaining in football and basketball that they cannot compete with the elite teams and win titles? Do they complain in baseball? No, they show up and they compete. Stop your crying and leave the college game to college age kids. If UML never wins a NC, it will not be due to having the same age players as BC & BU.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by islander98 View Post
                          Because the coaches can! There is no where for the coaches to put 18 and 19 year old football or basketball players that will further their development. Some of you are picking unusual circumstances to justify your position. The fact is that the majority of the players are much better hockey players after a year or two of junior hockey. The junior hockey system is a unique opportunity for NCAA coaches to improve the product on the ice. NCAA hockey would NOT be as good if it was full of 18 year old freshman that have never played beyond high school hockey. The product is improved by using Junior hockey to develop the players first.
                          The fact is most players are not significantly better after one, two or three years in juniors. The quality of the college game has gone downhill. The best players only stay one or two years and that has hurt the top programs, but it has not made the rest of the programs any better. D3 teams are recruiting 21 year old freshman, that’s absurd. The big programs will start bringing in a couple of 20-21 year old freshman every year and the age advantage will disappear, but the quality will not improve as long as the NHL keeps taking players early.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                            Originally posted by eaglekeeper View Post
                            Do you see BC complaining in football and basketball that they cannot compete with the elite teams and win titles?
                            Actually yes. It's hilarious on Twitter after they lose games. One season in and "Fire Coach X!"

                            BC in football, basketball, baseball et al competes with the same rules as everyone else in their respective sports, and doesn't win. They're also not a legit "elite" program in either sport, some parts due to their own academic constraints, location, etc. In hockey, they're an "elite" program party due to exactly the opposite reasons. And their history.
                            Originally posted by eaglekeeper View Post
                            Stop your crying and leave the college game to college age kids. If UML never wins a NC, it will not be due to having the same age players as BC & BU.
                            Where am I crying? I'm pretty amused when I see the people (and the schools they represent) who want the age limit.

                            And just to clarify, I've made it clear on these boards for years that I'd prefer even Lowell not having 21 year old freshmen (they'll have two at puck drop on the season opener this season). But I understand why programs do what they do, and it's not against the rules.
                            Monty

                            2011-2012 NCAA Tournament Participants
                            2012-2013 Hockey East Regular Season Champions, Hockey East Tournament Champions, and Frozen Four Participants
                            2013-2014 Hockey East Tournament Champions and NCAA Tournament Participants
                            2015-2016 NCAA Tournament Participants
                            2016-2017 Hockey East Regular Season Co-Champions, Hockey East Tournament Champions and NCAA Tournament Participants

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                              Isn't this whole thing a solution in search of a problem?

                              Yeah, a higher percentage of college hockey players are older than their peers playing college basketball or football or wrestling or whatever.

                              So what? What exactly is the problem? At the end of the day most of what these kids get is a college education paid for at least in party by their ability to play a sport. Does it matter that the college education comes when you are 23 or 24 versus 18 or 19? Personally I think a college education at any age is good.

                              Are we seeing a rash of injuries to our 18 and 19 year old college players at the hands of players who are 24 or 25? No. There is zero evidence of that. We have kids leaving school at 19 or 20 and going to play in the NHL against 35 year old men.

                              What it really comes down to is the "problem" that is only half spoken about is that certain coaches and programs don't like the fact that their players may be competing against kids that are two or three years older, on average. But the rules are the same for everyone.
                              That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                                Originally posted by duper View Post
                                I think that the difference here is maybe whether college athletes are viewed fundamentally as kids who are developing a skill (which would be a pretty legit reason to insulate them within a limited age group, as high school sports governing bodies tend to do) vs being viewed as adults.

                                I tend to view them as fundamentally adults, which makes me see no reason to protect them from playing against older, potentially more physically developed players. But I also have 2 other reasons why I don't like the idea of imposing a maximum age. One is that some players may have to reach their physical peak in order to be able to compete at a college level. If there is a player whose talent maxes out at NCAA ability level, and he doesn't reach that level until he's 20 or 21 as opposed to 18, I can't imagine having a problem with that. Second, I suspect that there are a handful of players who, while playing in the Juniors have realized that they are not destined for the NHL. If, on the other hand, they can use the talent they do have to get a scholarship to pay for an education, I can't imagine thinking that should be taken away from them just because they aren't 18 years old when they make that decision.



                                False
                                All of this is about winning, he says to no ones surprise. There are only so many elite 18 year old players out there. Schools like Minnesota, Michigan, BC, BU,... get the vast majority of this college bound group. To compete schools like UMD, MsUM, Union,... go after junior players to close the skill gap.

                                As referenced before, if football or basketball had a league, like juniors, where players maintained their NCAA eligibility, non-blue chip schools would be going after 20-21 year-olds to close the skill gap.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X