The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

Are we supposed to make a rule for 57 other teams because of what 4 do?

Well, yes. This is actually the very reason most all rules come about. For example most all guys would normally wear shirts at the golf club, but then of course there's the one Shirtless Guy. So they decided to make a rule. A law against bank robbing is totally unnecessary for 99% of people.

Age limiting does address deferring kids to a degree, but I agree there are other ways to go about it. As for a rule limiting commits, technically there's no such thing as a commit. A player is bound when a NLI is signed, but before that the NCAA doesn't recognize any difference between committed and uncommitted players. So they'd maybe have to address that first I'd guess.

[Bale]

Well, yes. This is actually the very reason most all rules come about. For example most all guys would normally wear shirts at the golf club, but then of course there's the one Shirtless Guy. So they decided to make a rule. A law against bank robbing is totally unnecessary for 99% of people.

Age limiting does address deferring kids to a degree, but I agree there are other ways to go about it. As for a rule limiting commits, technically there's no such thing as a commit. A player is bound when a NLI is signed, but before that the NCAA doesn't recognize any difference between committed and uncommitted players. So they'd maybe have to address that first I'd guess.

Fair point about making rules, it doesn't change the fact that it only affects a small number of kids in the first place. Your analogy also has a bit of a hole in it in that when making a rule that is meant to address a guy going Shirtless on the course, youre making a rule that you havr to wear a shirt. That's not going to affect all of the people that are already wearing shirts. This proposal affects a lot of the people that are "already wearing a shirt" and are collateral damage.

I guess the second part is the problem that I think a lot of people have. It addresses it to a degree, but it's affecting more kids that have nothing to do with deferring than it does the players that it's "intended" to affect. I don't disagree that over-recruiting and, to a lesser extent, deferrING kids are issues, but confront them directly rather than having a bunch of innocent kids getting caught in the crossfire.

[SJHovey]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

I don't know if those numbers tell all the story as they represent a % of the whole. For example what if 40 teams rarely or never commit more players than they have room for and the other 20 do it a lot? The 20 team's numbers could be smoothed out quite a bit there, if you follow me.


I had a twitter exchange with Mike McMahon at the end of February where I noted that Heisenberg showed six (not even Ivy) schools with a combined 75 incoming '16 freshman and a total of 24 graduating seniors among them. So 12.5 guys for 4 guaranteed spots/team. Some departures of course, but obviously an awful lot of those guys are getting deferred.

Does this criticism include Wisconsin, which by my count had only three seniors this past season, but for whom Heisenberg has 11 players listed as coming in?

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

But Heisenberg isn't always accurate on when players will come in. There is a huge difference between being deferred and knowing you were never coming in for a given year.

Agreed on the accuracy.

There is a difference, how huge it is is probably more a case by case thing. Since Mr. Hovey brought it up, UND, I believe, has 16 commits that are eligible to play college hockey in the fall. Not saying eligible is the same as ready, just saying they're eligible. Some will come in the fall, some the following year, perhaps some in two years, or maybe even some won't ever come in to UND. For the ones that come in this fall or next, I don't think anybody has a problem. For the much smaller number that may not come in until what could have been their junior year of college, or possibly not at all, I think there's legitimate debate to be had about what, if anything, should or could be done to mitigate that circumstance for various reasons.

Not singling out UND as doing anything wrong or out of the ordinary btw, it was just an at hand example of a potential scenario.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

Does this criticism include Wisconsin, which by my count had only three seniors this past season, but for whom Heisenberg has 11 players listed as coming in?

I honestly don't remember, I'd have to look it up, but it could. Wisconsin brought in a number of players late the last two years to bolster their practice squad and because of late decommits and departures. There are 22 underclassmen currently and it's common knowledge that several team members will not be back next year. And I don't think it's any surprise to any of the the guys in that situation.

[SJHovey]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

I honestly don't remember, I'd have to look it up, but it could. Wisconsin brought in a number of players late the last two years to bolster their practice squad and because of late decommits and departures. There are 22 underclassmen currently and it's common knowledge that several team members will not be back next year. And I don't think it's any surprise to any of the the guys in that situation.

Look, stop prevaricating. College hockey recruiting has changed in the last 10-20 years. Kids commit earlier, they change their minds, they don't develop as anticipated, they choose to sign with the Canadian leagues or even turn pro. We don't live in a world where you get the commitment from five or six kids a year or two before they come in, they come in and stay for at least three or maybe four years.

I'm sure that if I had the time I could go back to Heisenberg's lists and find Wisconsin recruits expected to show up one year only to be "pushed back" another year or two.

It happens, here and there and at one time or another to just about every program.

Frankly, I think it's actually been good for the college game. The sooner we get kids thinking of the college route, the better. They're still getting their college education if they want it. It's not a situation where teams are hoarding kids and other programs can't fill a full roster.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

Look, stop prevaricating. College hockey recruiting has changed in the last 10-20 years. Kids commit earlier, they change their minds, they don't develop as anticipated, they choose to sign with the Canadian leagues or even turn pro. We don't live in a world where you get the commitment from five or six kids a year or two before they come in, they come in and stay for at least three or maybe four years.

I'm sure that if I had the time I could go back to Heisenberg's lists and find Wisconsin recruits expected to show up one year only to be "pushed back" another year or two.

It happens, here and there and at one time or another to just about every program.

Frankly, I think it's actually been good for the college game. The sooner we get kids thinking of the college route, the better. They're still getting their college education if they want it. It's not a situation where teams are hoarding kids and other programs can't fill a full roster.

I also know that smaller school coaches have players sign NLIs before they actually plan (jointly agreed between player and coach) on having the player go to school in order to protect them from being poached by big schools that get hit by early departures. Which is partly a response to the choice of some college coaches choosing not to honor the gentlemen's agreement.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

I don't know if those numbers tell all the story as they represent a % of the whole. For example what if 40 teams rarely or never commit more players than they have room for and the other 20 do it a lot? The 20 team's numbers could be smoothed out quite a bit there, if you follow me.


I had a twitter exchange with Mike McMahon at the end of February where I noted that Heisenberg showed six (not even Ivy) schools with a combined 75 incoming '16 freshman and a total of 24 graduating seniors among them. So 12.5 guys for 4 guaranteed spots/team. Some departures of course, but obviously an awful lot of those guys are getting deferred.

Feel free to figure it out for yourself:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

[Slap Shot]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

Stockpiling recruits can be overcome by continuing to recruit them even after the verbal. Until they sign they are open game. But just another reason to whine about some programs.

[LtPowers]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

We don't live in a world where you get the commitment from five or six kids a year or two before they come in, they come in and stay for at least three or maybe four years.

Some college hockey teams do live in that world, as far as I can tell.


Powers &8^]

[UMICH]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

Its about lack of money, not lack of desire. Period.

No, not even close. It's lack of interest. The B1G has more money than it knows what to do with. You want examples? ohio state has a capacity percentage of 29.4%. Part of that is simply because they play in an absolutely huge arena. The biggest in all of college hockey by a wide margin. But considering that they have such a large arena to play their hockey games in why is it that they are dead last in the B1G TEN in attendance?

Yes the 6 team league sucks, even moreso because all of the teams blow right now. The B1G TEN has a rule that in order to join the conference you must join in all other sports (not just football, or not just everything but football as Notre Dame wanted to do years ago). I'm actually still shocked that the B1G just accepted Notre Dame as Hockey only. I never thought I'd see that but I guess the B1G is addmitting that the conference sucks right now. Unless Michigan and Minnesota can come back to prominence, sparty and Wisconsin can skate over the blue-line without tripping, and well ohio state and Penn State (who actually had good years last season) can do whatever they want the B1G will remain a joke. In the years leading up to Penn State going D-1 in college hockey it seemed as if it would be a super-conference with 3 out of the big 4 (Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and sparty) going to the tournament every year. Forming the B1G TEN Hockey conference seemed like a no-brainer. Unfortunately both Michigan and Minnesota fell on hard times (for them) and both Wisconsin and sparty self-destructed. Why this all happened in the same time span I'll never know but it is what it is. It actually looks as if Penn State was a good addition to the conference. They had a very good year and actually led the nation in capacity %. Now will the remaining B1G schools that do not currently have a D-1 hockey porogram follow suit? That is highly doubtful. Is Indiana a hockey hot-bed? No, and that also throws out Purdue. Maryland and Rutgers could be as everyone knows about the East Coast bias in regrds to hockey but Rutgers' athletic program is a sham and Maryland is good at bouncy-ball and Lacrosse only. Iowa? Well if you like playing hockey in a corn field so no (although I have heard that name tossed round). Same with Illinois although I think that actually has a chance. Nebraka? Maybe but UNO already has a D-1 team, there is no need for another. Finally Northwestern. That area has a need but come on, it's Northwestern. Great school, not so hot athletics.

Any of the schools that do not have programs could easily find the money somehow (OK, maybe not Maryland or Rutgers) but the interest simply isn't there.

[joecct]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

What about lax, the B1G and Johns Hopkins??

[UMICH]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

What about lax, the B1G and Johns Hopkins??

Oh yea, forgot about that. But it just reinforces my point about interest. Lax isn't exactly an expensive activity but it's highly doubtful that Minnesota and Wisconsin would ever go D-1 (I'm not sure if they even have Club teams but why wouldn't they). But of course John Hopkins has come in and dominated B1G LAX, Notre Dame won't dominate B1G hockey. They should come somewhere in the top 3 though.

I'm not positive but how does Minnesota look next year? Michigan is losing a lot of people but we always seem to reload. As always the big question mark next year will be goalie.

[joecct]

Oh yea, forgot about that. But it just reinforces my point about interest. Lax isn't exactly an expensive activity but it's highly doubtful that Minnesota and Wisconsin would ever go D-1 (I'm not sure if they even have Club teams but why wouldn't they). But of course John Hopkins has come in and dominated B1G LAX, Notre Dame won't dominate B1G hockey. They should come somewhere in the top 3 though.

I'm not positive but how does Minnesota look next year? Michigan is losing a lot of people but we always seem to reload. As always the big question mark next year will be goalie.

Maryland men won the B1G lax tournament over Rutgers. Maryland women won over Northwestern.

[cetihcra]

Oh yea, forgot about that. But it just reinforces my point about interest. Lax isn't exactly an expensive activity but it's highly doubtful that Minnesota and Wisconsin would ever go D-1 (I'm not sure if they even have Club teams but why wouldn't they). But of course John Hopkins has come in and dominated B1G LAX, Notre Dame won't dominate B1G hockey. They should come somewhere in the top 3 though.

I'm not positive but how does Minnesota look next year? Michigan is losing a lot of people but we always seem to reload. As always the big question mark next year will be goalie.

MCLA lacrosse, the body that governs club lax, has 200+ schools in 2 divisions, including Minny and Wisco. At the NCAA D1 level, it's cheaper than hockey, they only allow 12.6 scholarships per team (despite rosters that are often 40ish), and they can play on pre-existing fields, but it can also be a revenue sport, which might make it attractive. I'm sure the B1G schools that don't have it are at least studying it, much like hockey.

r