New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

[The Exiled One]

The result probably wouldn't be leading any change of policy in D-1 Hockey, which is what they're looking to do.

Leading is what you call it when others follow you voluntarily. That's clearly not what the B1G is doing.

I, for one, don't see them implementing the rule on a conference only level for reasons obvious to non-supporters.

[LynahFan]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Yes, I agree. I stated that poorly. My cousin paid virtually no tuition, because he met the fairly liberal requirements to do so. If your parents are making a million a year, you're paying the full way yourself. But I think in those cases the scholarships are obviously quite a bit less important anyway.

Edit: Just to clarify this a bit more, Ivies will generally match financial aid packages for athletes that Harvard, Princeton, or Yale offer. Currently at Princeton 120k/yr income or below and tuition is free as an example.

Just so.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Leading is what you call it when others follow you voluntarily.

What are you talking about? Benito Mussolini's nickname was literally "The Leader!"

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Can we take a step back from the way this was brought up and have an honest discussion about the merits?

What about all the kids in Junior Hockey that are waiting around hoping to get a scholarship that never comes? And let's be honest, how many of these 21-yo freshmen are getting anywhere near a free ride? On the merits, I'm not really sure this is a bad thing. 21 is a long time to wait to move on with the rest of your life if you're not good enough to play hockey at the next level. Not everyone graduates on time and many 18 yos aren't really ready to make those decisions but at 20, you'd think most should be ready to pick a school, a major and start classes and either play D1, D3, or club hockey while getting their degree.

Ignore who suggested this and the reasons we all think they did it and tell me it isn't better for the players/students if the window narrowed a little?

[Red Cloud]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

CHN: How about a player like Christian Folin (who entered Lowell at 21 and now plays in the NHL)?

Lucia: He still would have had three years of eligibility, so he still would have gone to college. Nothing would have changed, he just wouldn’t have had the fourth year.

This, more than anything, is the most disingenuous part of Lucia's comments. Older players going on to college aren't expecting to end up in the NHL - they probably still want to, and see college as a last-chance opportunity to make the show, but in the front of their minds they're usually thinking "well, if I'm good enough to play in college, I can at least turn hockey into a degree that I can use going forward."

Except it takes four years for most players to earn a bachelor's degree. Only got three years of eligibility? Whoops, that's not going to work.

Christian Folin certainly didn't have any NHL expectations when he arrived at Lowell - or if he did, few else did. He's the exception, not the rule - and yet, he's also a perfect example of what makes college attractive for older players - keep the dream alive while gaining an education that would serve as a perfect alternative to playing hockey, especially since even the most star-struck prospect knows that not everyone's going to get to play in the NHL.

It's college hockey, Don, not hockey college. Lucia doesn't hesitate in the slightest to recruit a kid he knows is never going to graduate, so one can probably excuse him for not knowing the difference.

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

What about all the kids in Junior Hockey that are waiting around hoping to get a scholarship that never comes? And let's be honest, how many of these 21-yo freshmen are getting anywhere near a free ride? On the merits, I'm not really sure this is a bad thing. 21 is a long time to wait to move on with the rest of your life if you're not good enough to play hockey at the next level. Not everyone graduates on time and many 18 yos aren't really ready to make those decisions but at 20, you'd think most should be ready to pick a school, a major and start classes and either play D1, D3, or club hockey while getting their degree.

Ignore who suggested this and the reasons we all think they did it and tell me it isn't better for the players/students if the window narrowed a little?

So wait, how is it better for the players if the window narrows?

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

So wait, how is it better for the players if the window narrows?

What do you want me to say? I think I laid it out there pretty clear. Why do you think the current system is better for the players? I'm talking about all players, not just the ones that get a spot on a D1 team and trying to be honest with myself about what this really means.

[Bale]

What do you want me to say? I think I laid it out there pretty clear. Why do you think the current system is better for the players? I'm talking about all players, not just the ones that get a spot on a D1 team and trying to be honest with myself about what this really means.

I guess this just gets back to, who does it benefit. Assume it goes through, are coaches going to still recruit those older kids that only have 3 years of eligibility? If they do, what happens to them until they finish their degree? Do they pay for it themselves? Or is this where full cost of attendance comes in? Remember, especially in smaller schools they have a pretty hard budget and that might not be realistic. Which leads to the other option. Do they get recruited at all? If they don't, who takes their spot? A younger kid that presumably has even less chance to succeed and is even less ready to compete at the college level?

Maybe the better question in this is, who does this help? It's not who does it hurt? Again, let's keep the schools out of it. Let's just focus on the kids. Is it helps g anyone or is it just shifting the "winners" and "losers"?

[bothman]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Would you guys want the government to dictate when you had to retire or would you like to have the choice to retire at 60, 65, 70, 75, etc?

People like having options. 100% better for the players to not have an age requirement.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

I guess this just gets back to, who does it benefit. Assume it goes through, are coaches going to still recruit those older kids that only have 3 years of eligibility? If they do, what happens to them until they finish their degree? Do they pay for it themselves? Or is this where full cost of attendance comes in? Remember, especially in smaller schools they have a pretty hard budget and that might not be realistic. Which leads to the other option. Do they get recruited at all? If they don't, who takes their spot? A younger kid that presumably has even less chance to succeed and is even less ready to compete at the college level?

Maybe the better question in this is, who does this help? It's not who does it hurt? Again, let's keep the schools out of it. Let's just focus on the kids. Is it helps g anyone or is it just shifting the "winners" and "losers"?

Again, if we could get honest answers from schools/players, I highly doubt most of these 21-yos aren't paying a significant portion of the costs for their schooling anyway because hockey only has 18 scholarships and most of these guys aren't top-18. I think the point of this legislation is to push those 21-yos to join school as 20-yos.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

It would truly be a credit to the league if they did that. The B1G says that younger players would reflect the average college student, which these players theoretically are (most are). The ECAC did this to its perceived detriment long ago with its refusal to permit athletic scholarships for member schools. In recent years and some of its member schools have clearly been able to overcome this hurdle and have yet to make any attempt at forcing the rest of college hockey to this same policy. It makes the ECAC all the more impressive and the B1G look all the more pathetic.

Bingo. But that's because (at least) half don't offer scholarships at all. The Ivies as I understand it.

EDIT I see this was answered above.

[Toe Blake]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Lucia and the Big Ten need a public relations guy in a big way. I can't imagine anyone worse than the University of Minnesota coach to be the one to propose this due to his conflict of interest. And I can't imagine the process followed could have been worse. Did they not see how bad it looks? Having said that, every response from a coach that I have seen is self serving and turf protecting. Same for the responses of fans. As far as I can tell, no one is looking at this from the student/athlete and parent perspective. How many 18 year olds who have college hockey aspirations really want to wait two years to get to the show? How many (rational) parents want their kids to actually move away from home to focus on hockey rather than academics or some other training that will make them productive adults? The problem with college hockey is not age, it's the unique and profitable business of the junior leagues. No other college sport needs a group of leagues to allow kids to "mature and develop". Clearly some kids develop later than others. That's why some kids don't make high school teams as well. Too bad, but that's life. The trickle down impact to D3 is evident. It's ridiculous that the vast majority of D3 rosters are made up of kids who played 1-2 years of junior hockey prior to college. None of these kids will make it to the next level, but they force hockey kids who are serious about academics to wait two years to begin college or to quit hockey. The rule does not really have the impact for the controversy it is creating. I would propose something far more impactful for the student athletes and parents. Treat junior hockey the same as junior college. If you play two years, you have used up two years of eligibility. It seems to work fine for basketball and football. Knowing that junior hockey is engrained in hockey culture, I realize this is never going to happen.......but maybe the discussion can move away from those whose career and profits are impacted, and switch to the participants and families.

[Bale]

Again, if we could get honest answers from schools/players, I highly doubt most of these 21-yos aren't paying a significant portion of the costs for their schooling anyway because hockey only has 18 scholarships and most of these guys aren't top-18. I think the point of this legislation is to push those 21-yos to join school as 20-yos.

That may be the intent, but is that the actual result? I'm not so sure it is. It does add another layer though, is your assumption correct on how much is being paid for? For that matter I question whether the 20 yo is ready to play or are they being forced into a position in which they are unable to prosper. If we're being honest, you're right a lot of them don't pan out, but of those that do, how many of them come to age in their junior year and how many do in their senior year?

To me this reeks of legislating for the sake of legislating. It doesn't seem like this really benefits anyone.

[St. Clown]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Lucia and the Big Ten need a public relations guy in a big way. I can't imagine anyone worse than the University of Minnesota coach to be the one to propose this due to his conflict of interest. And I can't imagine the process followed could have been worse. Did they not see how bad it looks? Having said that, every response from a coach that I have seen is self serving and turf protecting. Same for the responses of fans. As far as I can tell, no one is looking at this from the student/athlete and parent perspective. How many 18 year olds who have college hockey aspirations really want to wait two years to get to the show? How many (rational) parents want their kids to actually move away from home to focus on hockey rather than academics or some other training that will make them productive adults? The problem with college hockey is not age, it's the unique and profitable business of the junior leagues. No other college sport needs a group of leagues to allow kids to "mature and develop". Clearly some kids develop later than others. That's why some kids don't make high school teams as well. Too bad, but that's life. The trickle down impact to D3 is evident. It's ridiculous that the vast majority of D3 rosters are made up of kids who played 1-2 years of junior hockey prior to college. None of these kids will make it to the next level, but they force hockey kids who are serious about academics to wait two years to begin college or to quit hockey. The rule does not really have the impact for the controversy it is creating. I would propose something far more impactful for the student athletes and parents. Treat junior hockey the same as junior college. If you play two years, you have used up two years of eligibility. It seems to work fine for basketball and football. Knowing that junior hockey is engrained in hockey culture, I realize this is never going to happen.......but maybe the discussion can move away from those whose career and profits are impacted, and switch to the participants and families.

Knowing that the average student who enters college after time off from high school perform better than the average student who enters college directly from high school, it wouldn't bother me in the least. I would even suggest it if I didn't think the kid could make it to the pros but could still play on a college team. A few (very few) even take some online/correspondence courses while playing in the juniors so they have an easier time graduating college while at school playing for the team. Drew LeBlanc was working on his master's degree when he won the Hobey.

[Scarlet]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

As I think I posted before - I see two issues:

1. The actual idea of age limitation, is it needed, etc. I don't like it but I do understand it as an issue. I don't understand it enough to comment on it with any authority.
2. The fact that B1G chose to bring this to the NCAA outside of the rest of college hockey, knowing they are a power conference, knowing their vote is weighed 4x over other, etc. What if schools like B1G schools were doing this and schools like Union weren't able to get these guys and wanted to institute a change? They could not possibly do something like this. It does seem that after Union beat MN for the national championship this year that it started the process. And that's a shame. Because one of the coolest things about college hockey is that a team like a Union can beat a team like a University of Minnesota on the grandest of stages. It looks bad. It looks like they knew that if they went through all of college hockey to start a discussion, they would get shot down so this way, they don't have to worry about it. I don't like that.