Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    Originally posted by duper View Post
    I suspected this was the case; I'm so glad someone did the 38 seconds of work to find the data.
    He proved my point. If 16.2% are between 25 and 29 then 83.8% are normal COLLEGE AGE kids that being 18-23. That data also include students that are going for Masters, PhD as well so that skews the older figure. If you find number of undergraduate students I bets it north of 95% of college people that are 18-23.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

      Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
      Isn't this whole thing a solution in search of a problem?

      Yeah, a higher percentage of college hockey players are older than their peers playing college basketball or football or wrestling or whatever.

      So what? What exactly is the problem? At the end of the day most of what these kids get is a college education paid for at least in party by their ability to play a sport. Does it matter that the college education comes when you are 23 or 24 versus 18 or 19? Personally I think a college education at any age is good.

      Are we seeing a rash of injuries to our 18 and 19 year old college players at the hands of players who are 24 or 25? No. There is zero evidence of that. We have kids leaving school at 19 or 20 and going to play in the NHL against 35 year old men.

      What it really comes down to is the "problem" that is only half spoken about is that certain coaches and programs don't like the fact that their players may be competing against kids that are two or three years older, on average. But the rules are the same for everyone.
      The "problem" is that with 95% of high school graduates are going to be told to go play one or two years of juniors before enrolling in college. Why? Because in order to compete with players that are up to 6 or 7 years older they will have to go to juniors and get bigger and stronger. No other NCAA sport has that setup. Whats the drawback of installing an age requirement to play college sports...you know...for college age people. What would happen if every high school kid graduates and enrolls in college that next fall like every other sport? Why would NCAA hockey suffer at all - answer is it wouldnt. Please dont give me the quality of play excuse either. These kids have played over 1,000 games in their hockey careers and countless hours on/off ice. People wouldnt be able to tell the difference.
      Last edited by Lemonade; 04-23-2019, 08:45 AM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

        Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
        ...We have kids leaving school at 19 or 20 and going to play in the NHL against 35 year old men...
        The question of whether and to what extent college hockey is being hurt by NHL cradle robbing is worth a thread of its own. I don't have any stats but I'd be interested in getting a feel for how many wunderkinds who leave after a year or two find that their pro hockey dream plays out in the ECHL (or worse).
        "Through the years, we ever will acclaim........"

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

          Said this before, but coaches/programs who normally wouldn't bring in 20 and 21 year old freshmen have started to do that/are going to start doing it. So when that picks up and big programs start getting the best young kids and the best of the elderly...what is next for smaller programs? Do they start bringing in even older players? Where does it end?

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

            Originally posted by Lemonade View Post
            The "problem" is that with 95% of high school graduates are going to be told to go play one or two years of juniors before enrolling in college. Why? Because in order to compete with players that are up to 6 or 7 years older they will have to go to juniors and get bigger and stronger. No other NCAA sport has that setup. Whats the drawback of installing an age requirement to play college sports...you know...for college age people. What would happen if every high school kid graduates and enrolls in college that next fall like every other sport? Why would NCAA hockey suffer at all - answer is it wouldnt. Please dont give me the quality of play excuse either. These kids have played over 1,000 games in their hockey careers and countless hours on/off ice. People wouldnt be able to tell the difference.
            First, you didn't answer my question. Why is it bad that a freshman coming in might be 20 or 21?

            Second, if someone wants to leave high school and enter college as an 18 year old, there is literally nothing in the current rules that prevent that. The only thing holding the kid back would be grades/test scores and money, the same thing holding every other potential college student back.

            But what the proposal does do is potentially deny a kid an opportunity. You could have a kid whose skills are not good enough to attract a scholarship offer at 18, but maybe they do after a year or two of juniors. So now you have a kid who might get some of his college paid for (a pretty big deal these days) who would otherwise be denied under your plan. Since an education is all most of these kids will take out of their college career, isn't that important?

            NCAA hockey isn't suffering due to older kids coming in as freshmen. People have been biatching about this since Minnesota took its pucks and went home because they didn't like DU's players.
            That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

              Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
              First, you didn't answer my question. Why is it bad that a freshman coming in might be 20 or 21?

              Second, if someone wants to leave high school and enter college as an 18 year old, there is literally nothing in the current rules that prevent that. The only thing holding the kid back would be grades/test scores and money, the same thing holding every other potential college student back.

              But what the proposal does do is potentially deny a kid an opportunity. You could have a kid whose skills are not good enough to attract a scholarship offer at 18, but maybe they do after a year or two of juniors. So now you have a kid who might get some of his college paid for (a pretty big deal these days) who would otherwise be denied under your plan. Since an education is all most of these kids will take out of their college career, isn't that important?

              NCAA hockey isn't suffering due to older kids coming in as freshmen. People have been biatching about this since Minnesota took its pucks and went home because they didn't like DU's players.

              Its not bad for the 20 or 21 year old. Its bad for the 18 and 19 year old kid that just graduated high school and should be enrolling in college. Instead, his coach/school tell him he has to go play 2 years of juniors. Thats who it hurts. I think it does hurt NCAA hockey that 24 and 25 year old guys are playing - they are just taking the spot of a young player that belongs in college. The current system promotes bringing in 21 year old freshman. Its backwards.
              Last edited by Lemonade; 04-23-2019, 09:09 AM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                Originally posted by J.D. View Post
                Said this before, but coaches/programs who normally wouldn't bring in 20 and 21 year old freshmen have started to do that/are going to start doing it. So when that picks up and big programs start getting the best young kids and the best of the elderly...what is next for smaller programs? Do they start bringing in even older players? Where does it end?
                I don't see that as a problem at all since on average a program probably isn't bringing in more than 6-7 kids a year.

                Part of the reason that kids are playing a lot of junior hockey before entering college is due entirely to the way the "major" programs recruit, programs that I believe are behind the proposed changes. They are recruiting the stud players at a very young age, the recruits that if they continue to progress would be the kids coming in after high school. But because recruiting a 14-15 year old is an inexact science at best, they end up recruiting 8-10 of these kids for a class. The ones who progress come in at 18 or 19, the others get parked in juniors until maybe they're 20, if they come in at all.

                But people forget, the kids are fine with this. They want to play college hockey and they want some or all of it paid for by the school. The kids who don't want to wait in juniors don't. They decommit and look elsewhere.

                But the major programs would like it so that they can take the 8-10 commitments from the young studs, see which 5-6 pan out and bring them in as 18-19 year olds, discard the rest and essentially force the smaller programs to take the leftover 18-19 year olds because they can't take a 20-21 year old who is developing his skills with time.
                That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                  Originally posted by Lemonade View Post
                  Its not bad for the 20 or 21 year old. Its bad for the 18 and 19 year old kid that just graduated high school and should be enrolling in college. Instead, his coach/school tell him he has to go play 2 years of juniors. Thats who it hurts. I think it does hurt NCAA hockey that 24 and 25 year old guys are playing - they are just taking the spot of a young player.
                  Tell me how it hurts them?

                  The kids who don't like it decommit, and very few of them do that except if they think there is an opportunity to play elsewhere. None of them are bailing because they're desperate to get into that freshmen lit class.
                  That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                    Originally posted by eaglekeeper View Post
                    The fact is most players are not significantly better after one, two or three years in juniors. The quality of the college game has gone downhill. The best players only stay one or two years and that has hurt the top programs, but it has not made the rest of the programs any better. D3 teams are recruiting 21 year old freshman, that’s absurd. The big programs will start bringing in a couple of 20-21 year old freshman every year and the age advantage will disappear, but the quality will not improve as long as the NHL keeps taking players early.
                    With respect, you are absolutely wrong. The huge majority of kids are better players after a couple of years of Junior than they were at 17 coming out of high school or midget. College hockey IS better because of the extra development in Junior hockey. Ask any NCAA coach if the kids they scouted as 17 year olds and that they passed by are better hockey players a few years later. And why do the fans care? Because their programs don't have the same opportunity? Or because their elite programs have lost some advantage.

                    The ones who leave after a year or two are only the top 5-10% and they only went to college because they didn't have anywhere else to go or chose not to play in the CHL. Leaving early is a completely different discussion. It hurts the program and if the kid gets a few years in the ECHL without finishing his degree, it likely hurts them too.

                    I believe that the majority of the older freshman are playing for their education and will stay until they are finished. They want to get a college education and play hockey. Isn't that what the scholarships are supposed to be for?

                    Comment


                    • Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                      Originally posted by islander98 View Post
                      With respect, you are absolutely wrong. The huge majority of kids are better players after a couple of years of Junior than they were at 17 coming out of high school or midget. College hockey IS better because of the extra development in Junior hockey. Ask any NCAA coach if the kids they scouted as 17 year olds and that they passed by are better hockey players a few years later. And why do the fans care? Because their programs don't have the same opportunity? Or because their elite programs have lost some advantage.

                      The ones who leave after a year or two are only the top 5-10% and they only went to college because they didn't have anywhere else to go or chose not to play in the CHL. Leaving early is a completely different discussion. It hurts the program and if the kid gets a few years in the ECHL without finishing his degree, it likely hurts them too.

                      I believe that the majority of the older freshman are playing for their education and will stay until they are finished. They want to get a college education and play hockey. Isn't that what the scholarships are supposed to be for?
                      Zero fans can tell the difference between an 18 year olds and 20 year olds hockey game. None. People arent staying home because the quality of NCAA is declining. NCAA football/NCAA Basketball/EVERY OTHER NCAA sport quality of play is just fine and they are all normal college aged students.

                      Comment


                      • Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                        Boy this thread got infected with a lot of stupid. Folks need to read Lemonade's posts and think about the bigger picture. His last 3-4 posts and possibly beyond are spot on. This trend to older players is stupid and sad.
                        Originally posted by Greg Ambrose on 3/7/2010
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                          I'm glad to have a couple of people comment on why they think the age thing is a problem. I think I'm going to stick with my belief that there is no problem. It still seems to me like much ado about nothing. I believe that I understand why Lemonade and J.D. have a problem, I just don't see it as one.

                          That said, Lemonade, your assumptions about the age of college age students is false. Obviously, the majority of undergrad students fit in the 18-23-ish age range. But not really very close to 95% The reason I'm harping on this a little bit is the fact that I'm completely positive that I would have gotten a better education if I had worked a couple of years before I went to college. I'm not whining about it, but if I'd known then what I know now, I would have waited a little bit. Quite a few kids these days are doing exactly that. (I'm not suggesting that this has anything at all to do with the older hockey players, but since I objected to your use of the phrase college-age kids when it's clear to me that a 26-yr-old absolutely is a normal college-age kid, I reckon I ought to make my point.)

                          The Hamilton Project works out of the Brookings Institute. Their data comes from NCES. I'm not sharing this because of the data at for-profit colleges. I'm pointing out that according to this, 20% of undergrads at typical colleges are 25 years old or older.
                          Last edited by duper; 04-23-2019, 10:39 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                            Originally posted by Lemonade View Post
                            He proved my point. If 16.2% are between 25 and 29 then 83.8% are normal COLLEGE AGE kids that being 18-23.
                            This is incorrect. You are making the assumption that there are ZERO college students that are over 29 years old. If you looked at the link that was provided, in 2016, college students aged 18-24 made up a total of 58.5% of all college students.
                            Charter Member of darin's "UML Seven"

                            "I just hate Boston College to be perfectly honest'' -Ken Dorsey
                            "It's time for my favorite NCAA tradition ... that's right, rooting against BC!" -Bill Simmons

                            Comment


                            • Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                              Originally posted by ScottK View Post
                              This is incorrect. You are making the assumption that there are ZERO college students that are over 29 years old. If you looked at the link that was provided, in 2016, college students aged 18-24 made up a total of 58.5% of all college students.
                              9x% of the remaining 41.5% are not playing college athletics.

                              Comment


                              • Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                                ITT, people scared their team won't be able to compete without 25 year olds.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X