THE FOLLOWING TWO POSTS WERE SO LONG I HAD TO SPLIT THEM UP AND ARE THE LONGEST I'VE EVER POSTED ON THIS BOARD. NOT MY TWO CENTS BY ANY MEANS MAYBE TWO DOLLARS?
Actually the 20 year rule which was a precursor to the current NCAA policy on former MJ players who desire to play in the NCAA began in Jan. 1961. The 20-year rule stated that any one who plays on an organized team after his 20th birthday and before his college matriculation shall have each year of play counted against his varsity eligibility. The NCAA limited the rule to foreign students. This was the first major step taken to cut down on the number of older, more experienced Canadian players. During this time, the nationwide controversy and protest was primarily focused on Denver University’s unfair recruiting policies. The nationwide controversy reached such a peak in 1958, after Denver had won its first NCAA title, that only two teams in the Western league agreed to play DU the following year (NDU and CC). As a result, the league folded, and Denver did not have enough NCAA-accredited games for the tournament in 1959.
That’s not necessarily true. At the peak of the controversy in 1961, DU hockey was predominantly Canadian. All but one of its 19 players were Canadian. The only American was junior goalie Paul DiNapoli from Belmont, who had never played in a varsity game. Of the 18 Canadians, one was 24; three were 23 (including junior goalie George Kirkwood, who has been declared ineligible for next season because of the 20-year rule); five were 22; five were 21; three were 20; and one was 19. All but two of the Canadians played in the controversial Junior A leagues before college; one (defenseman George Konik) who turned down a two-year pro contract with the New York Rangers to go to college.
However, DU had an enrollment of 4200, three-fifths of which were men. The University had three undergraduate programs--in the Arts and Sciences, Engineering, and Business Administration--and graduate programs included a law school. DU boasted of students from all 50 states and from over 50 foreign countries, and had over 140 student organizations including 14 fraternities and seven sororities. Sixty percent of the student body were from outside the state of Colorado. Recruiting was not at all hindered by geography, socioeconomic or sociocultural factors. DU’s recruiting policy, primarily directed by Murray Armstrong, was purposely instituted and funded to recruit Canadians only. Murray Armstrong rarely made any attempt to recruit anywhere else. That is a fact, he admitted it and I can pull the research if you want to see it. His focus was to bring experienced Canadians of all ages to DU to win championships, which he did.
Nice selection bias here PS.
Let's clarify one point on this thread: John Mariucci was not the only principle figure in the DU protest as I pointed out previously. There was strong “Eastern” approach to developing American hockey, with whom Mariucci aligned himself, and the overall protest was clearly nationwide. Among key schools that waged fervent protest against DU were Harvard, Yale, St. Lawrence, Minnesota, etc. Jack Riley, coach of West Point and the U.S. Olympic team in 1960, was quoted as saying in 1961 that the NCAA tournament was "a farce" because of DU’s unethical Canadian recruiting policy.
Harvard was particularly vehement in their opposition to DU for two reasons: 1) Harvard believed the scholastic level of education at DU was low in comparison to their emphasis on athletic programs and 2) The recruiting policies were seen as violating NCAA ethical standards. Harvard refused to engage in post season play for 4 straight seasons because of what was perceived by Harvard as a movement by DU to professionalize college hockey.
Harvard’s Athletic Director (The Harvard Crimson, 1962) was very vocal in their protest and boycott stating that “hockey in the Western League seems to be on the wrong track” and that something must be done about the "heavily subsidized specialists" (i.e. DU) now playing in Western Hockey League uniforms.
Incidently, the history of the rise of commercialism in college athletics indicates that Ivy league schools have typically been at the center of fervent protest against the commercialization of college athletics in favor of scholarship. Unfortunately much of the battle is being lost in academia today in favor of sports entertainment value. The historical debate on scholarship and athletics has been consistently waged and defended in favor of scholarship primarily by Harvard and Yale among a very few others.
Furthermore, Mariucci as well as a host of other coaches loosely banded together to protest DU’s recruiting policies by boycotting NCAA postseason play in an effort to promote and expand USA hockey. It was not a protectionist, self serving movement but was an antecedent in the development of NCAA recruiting policy and USA hockey as it exists today. DU policy was legal before the rule change in 1961. However, under the democratic scrutiny of various coaches and major academic institutions in the United States, DU’s recruiting policy was viewed as entirely unethical and guilty of eligibility and recruiting violations.
That’s what coaches are hired to do. That does not negate the fact that the protest was broad based in regards to DU’s unfair eligibility and recruiting policies. Ecosystem? Show me some substantive research on that please. Third pillar? Absurd. Where is the scholarly research to substantiate your viewpoints PS?
No one is buttressing arguments here with idealism. There were both local and national interests at stake. However, accurate research indicates that Mariucci collaborated with several coaches throughout the United States to pioneer and promote ethical standards in NCAA recruitment policies and expand USA hockey. He was not anti-Canadian as there were Canadians who played during his tenure for the UMN. He was however Pro-American. 
