New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

[chickod]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Call me idealistic, but this is *college* and that ought to be one of the first concerns.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[blackswampboy]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Students playing college hockey at 25 and 26 are less likely to have an NHL career as a player. The kids who come into the NCAA at 18, 19 and 20 are more likely to get serious looks from scouts, if they've not already been drafted. The head scout for the Bluejackets said as much in an article about Duvie Westcott when he was leaving SCSU for the pros, saying that at 24 he was on the cusp of not getting any attention because he was so old to just then be entering their system.

Statistically no doubt, but then there's the Andrew Hammond story. The classic late bloomer.
There may not be a lot of them, but to personalize it--this change would hit guys like him.

oh, and Mike McMahon has a good piece up today:
http://blog.collegehockeynews.com/20...n-legislation/

"What problem does this legislation solve? To me, programs recruiting 13-year-old players or unabashedly recruiting other committed players is a MUCH BIGGER issue than a 21-year-old freshman."

[Ronnieb]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Funny! College sports>college

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

The list is growing every year as players develop at younger ages now than they did 20 years ago.
Ryan

The average age for NHL skaters today is about 27.5. In the 80's it was about 25. (with 9 less teams) So perhaps some individuals are developing more quickly, but as a group it doesn't seem that way.

[St. Clown]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

The average age for NHL skaters today is about 27.5. In the 80's it was about 25. (with 9 less teams) So perhaps some individuals are developing more quickly, but as a group it doesn't seem that way.

Or players are just able to sustain longer careers due to better diet and training regimens. Looking at MLB, spring training was intended to get guys back into shape after they spent the offseason working in factories, stores, etc., but that's not the case anymore. As sports medicine and training progresses, guys with career longevity like Chelios won't likely become the norm, but they won't be quite so rare either.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Those of us who were against a Big 10 hockey conference all along are proven right every single day.

[The Exiled One]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

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]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

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]

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]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

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]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

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]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

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]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

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]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

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]

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.