USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
- Thread starter Biddco
- Start date
Thanks.sbkbghockey
Registered User
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
Most studies show a slight decrease in concussions for players wearing full facial protection (cages); some have no conclusive data that one is better than the other for concussions. There's no difference in neck or spinal injuries. All of the studies I've read show that full facial protection does significantly reduce the amount of injury time per season of players studied and significantly reduces the severity and number of facial, dental and optical injuries.
As said early, it's more "keeping up with the Jones" (i.e. the CHL) rather than any BS about reducing reckless plays. Sticks are high because they are so light and can be harder to control, they also bounce a bit more so if you go to stick check another player's stick it can end up glancing of his stick and flying up into his face. With players being more conditioned and stronger than ever before and pucks being shot faster, I fear going to shields is a bad idea. Also the top prospects are STILL going to go to the CHL for many reasons. Stipends, Canadian hockey culture and traditions, 60+ game pro-style schedule, pro-style facilities, more media exposure (although college hockey is closing that gap), etc... shields vs. cages is probably very low on the list of a prospect or a non-factor completely. Going to shields is going to cost schools more in terms of medical and dental insurance and treatment and it may become another reason why schools decide to drop DI hockey or not enter the sport.
Most studies show a slight decrease in concussions for players wearing full facial protection (cages); some have no conclusive data that one is better than the other for concussions. There's no difference in neck or spinal injuries. All of the studies I've read show that full facial protection does significantly reduce the amount of injury time per season of players studied and significantly reduces the severity and number of facial, dental and optical injuries.
As said early, it's more "keeping up with the Jones" (i.e. the CHL) rather than any BS about reducing reckless plays. Sticks are high because they are so light and can be harder to control, they also bounce a bit more so if you go to stick check another player's stick it can end up glancing of his stick and flying up into his face. With players being more conditioned and stronger than ever before and pucks being shot faster, I fear going to shields is a bad idea. Also the top prospects are STILL going to go to the CHL for many reasons. Stipends, Canadian hockey culture and traditions, 60+ game pro-style schedule, pro-style facilities, more media exposure (although college hockey is closing that gap), etc... shields vs. cages is probably very low on the list of a prospect or a non-factor completely. Going to shields is going to cost schools more in terms of medical and dental insurance and treatment and it may become another reason why schools decide to drop DI hockey or not enter the sport.
Flashy Man
Misfit Emeritus
As long as full masks would still be an option, coaches and athletic departments could mandate them if they do desire.
KnightsOfTheRound
Hockey Knight in Boston
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
My biggest problem with "player choice" is that it would probably just be an illusion. The reality is, some coaches and some programs would likely require their players to wear one or the other and then there isn't any player choice at all. Or players will peer pressure their teammates to wear the 3/4 shield and before you know it everybody is wearing the 3/4 shield, safe or not. Rather than giving players a "choice" I think the NCAA should just require the safest equipment available. If a kid decides to go to the CHL because of the facemasks they wear in the NCAA, then he probably wasn't a good college recruit to begin with.
My biggest problem with "player choice" is that it would probably just be an illusion. The reality is, some coaches and some programs would likely require their players to wear one or the other and then there isn't any player choice at all. Or players will peer pressure their teammates to wear the 3/4 shield and before you know it everybody is wearing the 3/4 shield, safe or not. Rather than giving players a "choice" I think the NCAA should just require the safest equipment available. If a kid decides to go to the CHL because of the facemasks they wear in the NCAA, then he probably wasn't a good college recruit to begin with.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
Would they have an age requirement for the 3/4 shields, similar to the IIHF U-20 tournament (if you're under 18 years of age, you must wear either the full face shield or the cage)? Also, neck guards at RPI started to appear due to a traumatic experience for one of the players (think Richard Zednik), and I'm sure coaches would be willing to make different (yet perfectly legal) forms of equipment available.
Would they have an age requirement for the 3/4 shields, similar to the IIHF U-20 tournament (if you're under 18 years of age, you must wear either the full face shield or the cage)? Also, neck guards at RPI started to appear due to a traumatic experience for one of the players (think Richard Zednik), and I'm sure coaches would be willing to make different (yet perfectly legal) forms of equipment available.
MavHockey14
New member
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
Would shields help with high sacking penalties and shots to the head, as players are more aware?
Would shields help with high sacking penalties and shots to the head, as players are more aware?
JohnsonsJerseys
Michigan Tech Fan
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
The peer pressure factor is real, as I learned first hand after college. I played a few years in a USA Hockey over-18 full check league. I was the only player on my team, and one of the few in the league that wore a full cage. It was up to the player to choose and there was certainly a "cool" vibe in the league to play with a visor or even nothing at all as many players did. I took a fair amount of grief from both teamates and opposing players who told me to "grow-up..." and "lose the birdcage" and plenty of other references which will only come out as ***** here on this board. But in the end, many of my teamates took their "new" teeth out before games to avoid damaging their expensive dental implants while mine are still all original. So I had to put up with a bunch of crap when I played. Big deal. If a 20-something hockey player isn't grown up enough to make decisions about what is best for their personal health, that's their choice. People do dumb stuff all the time when it comes to their personal health (smoking, drunk driving, etc.) As long as the players have the option to take care of themselves I think making something less protective optional is fine.
I'm sure the CHL is shaking in their skates knowing that US colleges will now get all the best players in their new "visor league"...
Ryan J
The peer pressure factor is real, as I learned first hand after college. I played a few years in a USA Hockey over-18 full check league. I was the only player on my team, and one of the few in the league that wore a full cage. It was up to the player to choose and there was certainly a "cool" vibe in the league to play with a visor or even nothing at all as many players did. I took a fair amount of grief from both teamates and opposing players who told me to "grow-up..." and "lose the birdcage" and plenty of other references which will only come out as ***** here on this board. But in the end, many of my teamates took their "new" teeth out before games to avoid damaging their expensive dental implants while mine are still all original. So I had to put up with a bunch of crap when I played. Big deal. If a 20-something hockey player isn't grown up enough to make decisions about what is best for their personal health, that's their choice. People do dumb stuff all the time when it comes to their personal health (smoking, drunk driving, etc.) As long as the players have the option to take care of themselves I think making something less protective optional is fine.
I'm sure the CHL is shaking in their skates knowing that US colleges will now get all the best players in their new "visor league"...
Ryan J
DaveStPaul
New member
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
Where are people seeing that this is because of competition with the other leagues? I've never seen that.
I have seen plenty of discussion by coaches and former players, in hockey and in football, on how current players hit harder, in part (they feel) because you're protected by so much equipment you're unlikely to be injured. Which means when you *do* get injured it'll be catastrophic. Similarly they say they observed less recklessness in the past, in part because you risked knocking your own teeth out if you were out of control.
I haven't seen anyone suggest that people won't get injured in their faces with less protection. I think everyone knows that would be true. It's the overall effect of having to think a little bit more when you're playing that would show the benefits.
Anyway, there's plenty I've seen on this, especially recently. That's not news. What was news to me was the suggestion that this was all done to compete with other leagues. Where's that come from?
Where are people seeing that this is because of competition with the other leagues? I've never seen that.
I have seen plenty of discussion by coaches and former players, in hockey and in football, on how current players hit harder, in part (they feel) because you're protected by so much equipment you're unlikely to be injured. Which means when you *do* get injured it'll be catastrophic. Similarly they say they observed less recklessness in the past, in part because you risked knocking your own teeth out if you were out of control.
I haven't seen anyone suggest that people won't get injured in their faces with less protection. I think everyone knows that would be true. It's the overall effect of having to think a little bit more when you're playing that would show the benefits.
Anyway, there's plenty I've seen on this, especially recently. That's not news. What was news to me was the suggestion that this was all done to compete with other leagues. Where's that come from?
DaveStPaul
New member
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
I agree, there are plenty of things to be looked at. Back in September a player for the Avalanche said: "Let's be real: If you want to take out hits to the head, why are we wearing Terminator-sized shoulder pads? If you're coming in with your shoulders and all this padding, it really doesn't matter if you have the best helmet or the weakest helmet."
Because I respect what the coaches and ex-players have to say, I think there are good arguments for taking away the full shield. But that's only one part. Another part is calling the penalties already on the books. And for sure another issue is the rest of the equipment. All should be on the table, I think.
I agree, there are plenty of things to be looked at. Back in September a player for the Avalanche said: "Let's be real: If you want to take out hits to the head, why are we wearing Terminator-sized shoulder pads? If you're coming in with your shoulders and all this padding, it really doesn't matter if you have the best helmet or the weakest helmet."
Because I respect what the coaches and ex-players have to say, I think there are good arguments for taking away the full shield. But that's only one part. Another part is calling the penalties already on the books. And for sure another issue is the rest of the equipment. All should be on the table, I think.
uaafanblog
AKA - "Drop The Puck"
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
I think it's pretty interesting that this seems to have been a unanimous choice by the coaches. It's clear that there is no data to support the assertions about safety that they're making. I expect they've come to this place through years of interactions telling each other the anecdotes that NCAA Watcher mentioned. And over that time it's simply become some sort of urban myth within that peer group. Unanimity speaks volumes.
These guys think that full cages are a recruiting disadvantage and they're unconsciously trying to fix it, too bad it's the wrong way. I doubt many (if any) recruit ever told any coach he was going to the CHL for the shields. So they invented this semi-intricate, subtle argument about recklessness. And I'd bet dollars to donuts every single one of them would be prepared to passionately argue their case if you were able to corner them for that discussion. That's what happens when we "believe" myths.
I think it's pretty interesting that this seems to have been a unanimous choice by the coaches. It's clear that there is no data to support the assertions about safety that they're making. I expect they've come to this place through years of interactions telling each other the anecdotes that NCAA Watcher mentioned. And over that time it's simply become some sort of urban myth within that peer group. Unanimity speaks volumes.
These guys think that full cages are a recruiting disadvantage and they're unconsciously trying to fix it, too bad it's the wrong way. I doubt many (if any) recruit ever told any coach he was going to the CHL for the shields. So they invented this semi-intricate, subtle argument about recklessness. And I'd bet dollars to donuts every single one of them would be prepared to passionately argue their case if you were able to corner them for that discussion. That's what happens when we "believe" myths.
solovsfett
Registered User
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
most of these coaches played in the NCAA era when there were no shields or cages (Eaves and Parker for sure), no idea why they'd be passionate about the subject one way or the other really but there you go.
I have 0 idea why this is even a topic of discussion *NOW* when the NCAA has bigger (much bigger) fish to fry for hockey.
and as someone else said, wait until the first couple of kids lose 3-4 teeth on a high stick or puck deflected to the face...the reaction by non-nhl fans and the ncaa will be very interesting to say the least.
most of these coaches played in the NCAA era when there were no shields or cages (Eaves and Parker for sure), no idea why they'd be passionate about the subject one way or the other really but there you go.
I have 0 idea why this is even a topic of discussion *NOW* when the NCAA has bigger (much bigger) fish to fry for hockey.
and as someone else said, wait until the first couple of kids lose 3-4 teeth on a high stick or puck deflected to the face...the reaction by non-nhl fans and the ncaa will be very interesting to say the least.
A handful of coaches
DaveStPaul
New member
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
So where are people hearing that this is a cynical move to compete with the CHL etc etc?
So where are people hearing that this is a cynical move to compete with the CHL etc etc?
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
I can remember years ago (and I mean years ago) when shields first came out that one of the objections was as follows: With the 1/2 shield there was the potential for the high stick to get up under the visor and actually cause more damage to the face then would be the case of a glancing blow to the face. Of course it was conceded that visors would reduce direct hits to eye and nose area. That fear of a "grinding" effect of a stick rotating under the shield always made sense to me.
Perhaps what has happened with shield design improvement is that there is now much less area under the 1/2 or 3/4 shield for the stick to enter??
I can remember years ago (and I mean years ago) when shields first came out that one of the objections was as follows: With the 1/2 shield there was the potential for the high stick to get up under the visor and actually cause more damage to the face then would be the case of a glancing blow to the face. Of course it was conceded that visors would reduce direct hits to eye and nose area. That fear of a "grinding" effect of a stick rotating under the shield always made sense to me.
Perhaps what has happened with shield design improvement is that there is now much less area under the 1/2 or 3/4 shield for the stick to enter??
solovsfett
Registered User
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
where has that ever happened though where a stick gets caught between visor and face? It's almost impossible to fathom. Every time I see a stick come up w/some dude and a 1/2 shield that helmet gets knocked sideways or upwards so that the shield part is on top of the head or the side of the head.
as you can likely tell though, I'm a proponent of going the other way. have the NHL go to cages like the NFL does and just eff off w/the warrior bull****.
where has that ever happened though where a stick gets caught between visor and face? It's almost impossible to fathom. Every time I see a stick come up w/some dude and a 1/2 shield that helmet gets knocked sideways or upwards so that the shield part is on top of the head or the side of the head.
as you can likely tell though, I'm a proponent of going the other way. have the NHL go to cages like the NFL does and just eff off w/the warrior bull****.
uaafanblog
AKA - "Drop The Puck"
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
NCAA hockey may (in a limited sense) be somewhat of a minor league for the pros. That wasn't the intent. The intent is to allow students to pursue their amateur athletic interests. The largest school's Athletic departments are nothing less than for profit professional sports corporations. The NCAA should implement rules for ALL it's student/athletes and not just in favor of some small percentage that move along to compete in major professional sports.
Those schools (i.e... the greedy money chasing pigs) that don't like it should depart the NCAA.
NCAA hockey may (in a limited sense) be somewhat of a minor league for the pros. That wasn't the intent. The intent is to allow students to pursue their amateur athletic interests. The largest school's Athletic departments are nothing less than for profit professional sports corporations. The NCAA should implement rules for ALL it's student/athletes and not just in favor of some small percentage that move along to compete in major professional sports.
Those schools (i.e... the greedy money chasing pigs) that don't like it should depart the NCAA.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
I don't see why we're trying to coddle the players. If they want to play with 3/4 shields, let them. If they want to play with cages, let them.
I don't see why we're trying to coddle the players. If they want to play with 3/4 shields, let them. If they want to play with cages, let them.
Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?
It's coddling to be concerned about the number and severity of concussions in hockey?