New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Of course all of that is presuming older players are really having as much of an affect as people are attempting to portray.

While I get what you're saying, IMO this is a thing. Moving the limit from 3 yrs of juniors to 2 yrs I don't believe will have much, if any, effect on the level of competition. Jackson and proponents say primarily the same guys will get in, and presumably develop by 24. I think that's true, although there will be some anecdotal instances I suppose where it's not.

As a Wisconsin fan, I don't really see it as a competitive edge thing myself (which I completely realize I'm predisposed to be biased) But the 21 year old freshman haven't hurt UW. What has is one and two and done players, and the CHL. The push back on early departures is ,of course "don't recruit those kids." But I think NCAA Hockey is better off with the best talent, playing for the longest amount of time in league. I don't think this really addresses those issue so much, but on it's own merits, I'm not opposed to it. I do see the possibility of an alternative league where we all take that advice all eventually just recruit older players and let the young stars go North. I don't think that would be best for the growth of college hockey. And I don't think pushing kids back is good for the vast majority of players in that situation.

[Bale]

And I don't think pushing kids back is good for the vast majority of players in that situation.

And for me, that's the rub. We don't necessarily KNOW that kids are beino pushed back in most cases. That's the assumption made by the proponents because that's what they are doing when the have older kids (as Jackson admitted in his interview). The number that were thrown out earlier in this thread seem to fly in the face of that argument. It seems like we're all arguing something (coaches included) in which we don't have a full set of facts. We're still arguing what the facts are. Things like, how often are kids being pushed back versus how often are kids being recruited late and how many players would actually be affected are essential information to come to a logical conclusion. Maybe the anecdotal evidence is actually coming from the proposes side, we don't really know at this point.

I agree that if we're talking about 100 kids per class fall into this category and there are 400+ kids at any given time that are affected by this and a majority of them are being pushed back, then there is a real problem. Unfortunately, we have no idea on whether that's true or not.

[giwan]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Of course that would be the perfect ideal for the nhl. But let's not accuse the nhl of being too forward thinking.

The argument to that, again, is the stats don't lie. There are more college players now than ever before. If the argument is that college is getting older and thas a negative, shouldn't the number of players from college actually be going down? It seems to me that if these older players are such a bad thing to the nhl, they would be taking less and less college players. If anything, it seems like older players are actually making the level of competition better and players in college are developing better. Of course all of that is presuming older players are really having as much of an affect as people are attempting to portray.

So the NHL teams can give any age kid they want the MOST a great contract to move on to the pros at anytime but somehow keep picking these older people they are complaining about?

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

And for me, that's the rub. We don't necessarily KNOW that kids are beino pushed back in most cases. That's the assumption made by the proponents because that's what they are doing when the have older kids (as Jackson admitted in his interview). The number that were thrown out earlier in this thread seem to fly in the face of that argument. It seems like we're all arguing something (coaches included) in which we don't have a full set of facts. We're still arguing what the facts are. Things like, how often are kids being pushed back versus how often are kids being recruited late and how many players would actually be affected are essential information to come to a logical conclusion. Maybe the anecdotal evidence is actually coming from the proposes side, we don't really know at this point.

I agree that if we're talking about 100 kids per class fall into this category and there are 400+ kids at any given time that are affected by this and a majority of them are being pushed back, then there is a real problem. Unfortunately, we have no idea on whether that's true or not.

Let me put it the opposite way. Whether or not they're being pushed back (and also speaking as a parent) I'd much rather have my kid in school at 20 playing hockey, than have him playing a third year of Juniors considering the time and expense invested for a relatively low chance of return at that point if they haven't been pushed back. It just seems like the overwhelming majority of 21 year olds would develop as much in their freshman year as they would in Juniors. Put some of the onus on the school to spend and invest to develop them vs. leaving them out in the cold to shoulder expense and the high risk of no return. Red shirt some. Cut some loose if you must. At least they're getting a start on their education. And for those very few who fall through the cracks, there will be a place for them if they are good enough. There are 30 plus transfers getting into school with only three years of eligibility remaining this year, which seems to show coaches will take them.

Of course again, that's from my Badger view of college hockey. One thing this thread has made me realize even more is that my own perception of what college hockey is at it's best (15,000 screaming fans in the house every night, 20-25 NHL picks and top prospects on the ice) is vastly different then say a fan of a smaller eastern program like St. Lawrence playing at historic Appleton arena. It would be hard to imagine we're talking about the same sport if interviewed separately, I'd guess. It's just very different, so naturally we're going to have widely differing views on issues.

[Bale]

Of course again, that's from my Badger view of college hockey. One thing this thread has made me realize even more is that my own perception of what college hockey is at it's best (15,000 screaming fans in the house every night, 20-25 NHL picks and top prospects on the ice) is vastly different then say a fan of a smaller eastern program like St. Lawrence playing at historic Appleton arena. It would be hard to imagine we're talking about the same sport if interviewed separately, I'd guess. It's just very different, so naturally we're going to have widely differing views on issues.

that certainly does seem what it's coming down to, doesn't it? We all think that our experience is the typical one so we assume that's the case for all fans, players, coaches and programs. It's what makes college hockey so fascinating and frustrating all at once.

[Bale]

So the NHL teams can give any age kid they want the MOST a great contract to move on to the pros at anytime but somehow keep picking these older people they are complaining about?

I'm not trying to be flippant, but I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

And for me, that's the rub. We don't necessarily KNOW that kids are beino pushed back in most cases. That's the assumption made by the proponents because that's what they are doing when the have older kids (as Jackson admitted in his interview). The number that were thrown out earlier in this thread seem to fly in the face of that argument. It seems like we're all arguing something (coaches included) in which we don't have a full set of facts. We're still arguing what the facts are. Things like, how often are kids being pushed back versus how often are kids being recruited late and how many players would actually be affected are essential information to come to a logical conclusion. Maybe the anecdotal evidence is actually coming from the proposes side, we don't really know at this point.

I agree that if we're talking about 100 kids per class fall into this category and there are 400+ kids at any given time that are affected by this and a majority of them are being pushed back, then there is a real problem. Unfortunately, we have no idea on whether that's true or not.

The fact is that a lot of this is tough to judge because potentially alot of this could be more about the perception of trends for players currently committed versus players already on rosters. One of the things I definitely noticed was while MTU's current roster doesn't have many of these players, there are some guys committed that depending how the next year or 2 shakes out could skew things more towards this rule hurting MTU and changing the average length of commitment for 21yo frosh on MTU.

[blackswampboy]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Of course again, that's from my Badger view of college hockey. One thing this thread has made me realize even more is that my own perception of what college hockey is at it's best (15,000 screaming fans in the house every night, 20-25 NHL picks and top prospects on the ice) is vastly different then say a fan of a smaller eastern program like St. Lawrence playing at historic Appleton arena. It would be hard to imagine we're talking about the same sport if interviewed separately, I'd guess. It's just very different, so naturally we're going to have widely differing views on issues.

And that is precisely the problem.

widely differing views are fine and well. we can all chit-chat on this for the next three months, maintaining the convenient illusion that St. Lawrence's opinion matters.
But when April comes around, St. Lawrence's view (as well as that of 20+ other hockey schools) will not be represented in the vote.
meanwhile...reps from Kentucky, Texas Tech, Miami (FL), UCLA, and Northwestern have their votes on this hockey legislation weighted x4. By my count, the Big 12 actually has 6 votes on the Council (Texas Tech x4, Big 12 Conference x1, and Iowa State x1). UNC-Charlotte, Texas State, Longwood, NC Central Univ., and Nicholls St. each have more voting power on the issue than the following hockey schools combined:

Mercyhurst, Bentley, RIT, AIC, RPI, St. Lawrence, Clarkson, Union, Merrimack, St. Cloud State, Minnesota Duluth, Colorado College, Minnesota State, Michigan Tech, Ferris State, Northern Michigan, Alaska, Alaska-Anchorage, Bemidji State, Alabama-Huntsville, Lake Superior State

But by all means, let's all keep sharing views on the topic. ;-)

[boblav1]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

NOTRE DAME COACH JEFF JACKSON EXPLAINS WHY HE SUPPORTS BIG TEN’S FRESHMAN AGE LIMIT PROPOSAL

[giwan]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

NOTRE DAME COACH JEFF JACKSON EXPLAINS WHY HE SUPPORTS BIG TEN’S FRESHMAN AGE LIMIT PROPOSAL

Because now it benefits him.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

So you are saying that Harvard staff definitively pursued Olson and not the other way around?

Harvard has acquired talent and lost talent due to the players having change of hearts (either about the school, a coaching change, or the fact that they were going to be parked in JRs for 1-2 years) . Some have even gone over to Yale and vice versa.

Anyone who believes that a 17-18 year old pledge (or even a 15-16 year old pledge) is made out of concrete either doesn't have children or is delusional.

I'm saying he verbally committed to Michigan Tech in May 2014 and in November 2014, he flipped to Harvard. Who instigated the switch is anyone's guess but Mel Pearson did not have very nice comments about Harvard and what happen in this situation on one of his radio shows.

[St. Clown]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

I'm saying he verbally committed to Michigan Tech in May 2014 and in November 2014, he flipped to Harvard. Who instigated the switch is anyone's guess but Mel Pearson did not have very nice comments about Harvard and what happen in this situation on one of his radio shows.

If a player has the chance for a free ride (may or may not be the case, irrelevant though) to play hockey in Boston or the same deal to play hockey in the middle of Nowheresville, UP, where do you think he's going to play?

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

If a player has the chance for a free ride (may or may not be the case, irrelevant though) to play hockey in Boston or the same deal to play hockey in the middle of Nowheresville, UP, where do you think he's going to play?

Thats fine and dandy during the recruitment period but we're talking about Harvard not upholding the gentleman's agreement. The fact remains that a player committed to MTU and changed to Harvard less than 6 months later...that is an indication that Harvard's staff does not follow the gentleman's agreement.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Thats fine and dandy during the recruitment period but we're talking about Harvard not upholding the gentleman's agreement. The fact remains that a player committed to MTU and changed to Harvard less than 6 months later...that is an indication that Harvard's staff does not follow the gentleman's agreement.

I get that it sucks, but I think at some point the Gentleman's agreement is going to die completely. With no NLI's it's open season on the Ivy's players for teams already not following it. This case aside, from their point of view it's hard for them to stick to it I think.
Figure out what to do there. Figure out how to not have 13-16 year olds committing, while somehow still being able to fight off the CHL. Maybe do something with the age thing, but recruiting has plenty of issues that aren't good for kids or schools.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

I get that it sucks, but I think at some point the Gentleman's agreement is going to die completely. With no NLI's it's open season on the Ivy's players for teams already not following it. This case aside, from their point of view it's hard for them to stick to it I think.
Figure out what to do there. Figure out how to not have 13-16 year olds committing, while somehow still being able to fight off the CHL. Maybe do something with the age thing, but recruiting has plenty of issues that aren't good for kids or schools.

Actually they did create a document to assists schools like the Ivy League or RIT/Union. I can't remember the name, but they have the ability to "sign" players.