Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 195

Thread: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

  1. #161
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South Central, Wis
    Posts
    1,414

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonade View Post
    I believe I saw 39 on Wisconsin post and that was with 2 out of 4 goalie spots empty. Even at 37 thats ridiculous. Still only 18 scholarships.
    Never said it wasn't and I don't disagree. Just wanted it to be correct.

  2. #162
    I got nothing Slap Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Clark Freeport Zone, Philippines
    Posts
    31,618

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    Quote Originally Posted by broncoinak View Post
    They're either college aged or they're not, dude. Your feelings on how "ridiculous" or "absurd" it is are meaningless. The fact, as shown earlier in the thread, is that fewer hockey players are 25+ than non-athletes among full time undergraduates. You're gonna need a new argument. Maybe try being honest? Its OK to say "I only care about this because it would help my program win games".
    Settle down buddy. When did I type, "ridiculous" or "absurd" in this thread? Also the program I follow wins far more often than not already and will always be that way no matter the rules. I've already said I don't feel strongly about this topic but if I read a weak argument I don't mind speaking out against them. I repeat my counter to some of them is that there being non-athlete students aged 25+ has nothing to do with the ages of actual student-athletes, and since the vast, vast majority of all student athletes are not 25+ why is hockey different and what makes it ok? What is better for the overall game? I do feel having athletes that age lessens the college game but it doesn't pain me enough to abandon the sport nor stop cheering for my program nor the sport itself.

    I will take the low road for one moment though and say to you maybe try being honest? Its OK to say, "I only care about this because it would help my sh**y program win games".

  3. #163
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    39

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonade View Post
    18/19 year old freshman arent ready to play D1 hockey because its full of 22, 23, 24 year old players....thats the debate. If age limits happened you would have 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 year olds in NCAA hockey and 18/19 year olds would then be ready to play upon arrival on campus.
    While I commend you on your attempt to focus the debate on an argument that supports your perspective, I respectfully disagree. The debate is whether having 21 year old freshman is good for college hockey. I am certain that the premier programs will always get the best of the younger players, if they want them. But you acknowledge that those star 18 year olds have a difficult time playing against the 24 year olds. Then why not leave them in Junior for a year or two more, then they can compete and possibly excel? Wouldn't this then lead to even better quality of play for the elite programs?

    The reason that the supporters of the elite programs don't like the 21 year old freshman is because it evens the playing field. It creates more parity in the leagues thereby leading to more competitive games and more enjoyment for the fans. The smaller programs have a reasonable opportunity to win because they have adapted WITHIN the rules and focused on playing to their strengths. They can offer older players who may have developed a bit later than the stars, a quality education and a chance to play the game they love. Isn't that what college sports are about? The parity is a positive thing. Maybe the elite programs need to recruit better so that they sign hockey players who have no interest in their education and are only using college as a development ground to go pro. At the first sniff of a chance to play pro, they leave because they were not there for the education in the first place. In my humble opinion, those elite players who are only using college hockey to further their HOCKEY careers with no interest in education, should stay in Junior hockey. I liek the parity that the current situation creates. It makes the hockey more fun for more people. my two pennies
    Last edited by islander98; 04-26-2019 at 01:43 PM.

  4. #164
    Michigan Tech Fan
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    2,451

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    The big programs don't want their talent to play another year of junior hockey and get stronger / older because it is another year for "advisers" to get in their ear and convince them to skip NCAA hockey completely and play major junior or turn pro.

    Ryan
    Preserving Michigan Tech's Hockey History
    https://www.johnsonsjerseys.net
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer View Post
    Tech has the best of everything, even the best jersey nerd.

  5. #165
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    14,603

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    Congrats to BU on getting the first '05 commit. Only a few days left to get these worthless verbal commits in!

  6. #166
    Holding court
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    HOTel cORAL esSEX
    Posts
    5,910

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    Quote Originally Posted by islander98 View Post
    Then why not leave them in Junior for a year or two more, then they can complete and possibly excel?
    Jesus Christ. Really?
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Ambrose on 3/7/2010 View Post
    The fact that you BC fans revel in the superiority of your team in an admittedly weak league leads me to believe you will be more sorely disappointed when the end comes than we will.

  7. #167
    I got the juice
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Calirado
    Posts
    1,453
    Quote Originally Posted by islander98 View Post
    While I commend you on your attempt to focus the debate on an argument that supports your perspective, I respectfully disagree. The debate is whether having 21 year old freshman is good for college hockey. I am certain that the premier programs will always get the best of the younger players, if they want them. But you acknowledge that those star 18 year olds have a difficult time playing against the 24 year olds. Then why not leave them in Junior for a year or two more, then they can compete and possibly excel? Wouldn't this then lead to even better quality of play for the elite programs?

    The reason that the supporters of the elite programs don't like the 21 year old freshman is because it evens the playing field. It creates more parity in the leagues thereby leading to more competitive games and more enjoyment for the fans. The smaller programs have a reasonable opportunity to win because they have adapted WITHIN the rules and focused on playing to their strengths. They can offer older players who may have developed a bit later than the stars, a quality education and a chance to play the game they love. Isn't that what college sports are about? The parity is a positive thing. Maybe the elite programs need to recruit better so that they sign hockey players who have no interest in their education and are only using college as a development ground to go pro. At the first sniff of a chance to play pro, they leave because they were not there for the education in the first place. In my humble opinion, those elite players who are only using college hockey to further their HOCKEY careers with no interest in education, should stay in Junior hockey. I liek the parity that the current situation creates. It makes the hockey more fun for more people. my two pennies
    Truth is, a lot of these top recruits choose a school that will put them on the team right out of HS. If they make them play junior hockey first, theyíll go elsewhere whether thatís another school or minor league/major juniors. Thatís on them. Anybody who is arguing itís not fair to put these poor lil boys on the ice against a 23-24 year old (or occasionally 25 26 in rare circumstances) clearly hasnít watched junior hockey leagues which is 5x more violent than college.
    Thereís far more reasons not related to hockey why the current rules benefit college hockey overall. IIRC hockey has the highest graduation rate amongst NCAA sports or at least amongst the top. A lot of 18-19 year old males are not mature enough for it and the education they get to remain eligible is a joke. High talent guys straight out of HS only using NCAA as a stepping stone to pros are a waste of a scholarship. We should try to make college hockey more like football and basketball where college is just a joke and technicality?
    And Iím sick of people throwing around the age 25 as if itís some loophole teams use to cheat the system. These are guys who had to be redshirted, or had to sit out a year from transferring (after a full stint in the juniors). Hardly anything that is in the usual nor are they ever some top prospect

  8. #168
    I got nothing Slap Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Clark Freeport Zone, Philippines
    Posts
    31,618

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnsonsJerseys View Post
    The big programs don't want their talent to play another year of junior hockey and get stronger / older because it is another year for "advisers" to get in their ear and convince them to skip NCAA hockey completely and play major junior or turn pro.

    Ryan

  9. #169
    Watch out for the bull!
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    North Mankato, MN
    Posts
    3,295

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    168 posts, and no one's mind has been changed about it. Let it go.
    My guy is a hard-nosed hockey player who is not afraid to crash the net. Your guy is a goon who runs the goalie.

  10. #170
    duper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,249

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    Quote Originally Posted by MavsFan View Post
    168 posts, and no one's mind has been changed about it. Let it go.
    The 171st post will change EVERYONE'S mind!

  11. #171
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    39

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    Quote Originally Posted by duper View Post
    The 171st post will change EVERYONE'S mind!
    It's difficult to have a debate with people when their only argument is that it isn't fair and we can't win all the time. In every other sport, rules that create parity in the game are usually considered to be for the benefit of the game and the fans. Just saying

  12. #172
    duper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,249

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    Quote Originally Posted by islander98 View Post
    It's difficult to have a debate with people when their only argument is that it isn't fair and we can't win all the time. In every other sport, rules that create parity in the game are usually considered to be for the benefit of the game and the fans. Just saying
    I don't know; I don't think I actually see this thread that way. I see this as a debate between parity across the sport v physical parity between players on the ice. I'm sure that some people are arguing from a selfish perspective, but it honestly seems to me that this has mostly been a legit discussion of 2 different ways of seeing the same thing. For sure, nothing anyone has said has swayed me to think much differently about it then I already did, but I also haven't felt like "they" just want things to be better for their teams.

  13. #173
    Kings affiliate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    St. Cloud, MN
    Posts
    11,877

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    9 '04's commit this past week.

  14. #174

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    38,988
    Quote Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time View Post
    9 '04's commit this past week.
    Let's see how many actually play for the school they committed to.

  15. #175
    Kings affiliate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    St. Cloud, MN
    Posts
    11,877

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    Couple '05's in there as well...

  16. #176
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,662

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    They should have implemented the restrictions immediately once it passed instead of waiting until May 1st.

  17. #177
    Kings affiliate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    St. Cloud, MN
    Posts
    11,877
    Quote Originally Posted by QUAlum2004 View Post
    They should have implemented the restrictions immediately once it passed instead of waiting until May 1st.
    I do find it interesting all these young kids are committing to 6-7 schools...

  18. #178
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,839

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    It's still a major win for all of us fans despite the crap being rushed in right now. After this when we get a commitment it is much more meaningful. They could still flip or bail but at least they'll be 11th graders.

  19. #179
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,839

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    For those that like records, I believe Anthony Cipollone is still the youngest commitment ever. 13 years 2 months to Vermont. And he's still committed there!

    Top 4 based on my records:
    Cipollone - Vermont - 1/2015 - 13 years 2 months (still committed)
    Levis - Michigan - 2/2018 - 13 years 4 months 18 days (still committed)
    Lucius - Minnesota - 8/2017 - 13 years 4 months 27 days (still committed)
    Not sure if anyone between here and...
    Wahlstrom - Maine - 1/2014 - 13 years 6 months (lol not so committed anywhere)

  20. #180
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Brighton, MA
    Posts
    1,349

    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonin21 View Post
    For those that like records, I believe Anthony Cipollone is still the youngest commitment ever. 13 years 2 months to Vermont. And he's still committed there!

    Top 4 based on my records:
    Cipollone - Vermont - 1/2015 - 13 years 2 months (still committed)
    Levis - Michigan - 2/2018 - 13 years 4 months 18 days (still committed)
    Lucius - Minnesota - 8/2017 - 13 years 4 months 27 days (still committed)
    Not sure if anyone between here and...
    Wahlstrom - Maine - 1/2014 - 13 years 6 months (lol not so committed anywhere)
    To add to this, for those that like data, I went and looked at the trends for Hockey East recruits who committed before they hit age 16, to see how many kids keep/are keeping those commitments versus those who did not. From what I gathered, 42/62 (67+%) players who committed to a Hockey East school before the age of 16 between 2011 and 2017 (excluding Notre Dame) have arrived on campus of their original school, or are still committed to that school. Of the 20 who did not keep it, 11 went to another D1 school. This data obviously can't be extrapolated across all of D1 and doesn't necessarily reflect all 60 programs, but it's at least a talking point and something to consider

    Here's the full thread of what I found: https://twitter.com/NUHockeyBlog/sta...04737356701696
    "Never tell me the odds"

    https://northeasternhockeyblog.com/

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •