Reddington
Well-known member
My prediction: If there is no hockey this year, then no players will be signed in November and those players will be asked to defer for a year to clear out the logjam of extra elgibili
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.
If No Hockey then......an intelligent discussion on scenarios.
- Thread starter Reddington
- Start date
Reddington
Well-known member
Eligibility. Thoughts? Any other thoughts on likely courses of action.
I am not optimistic at all there will be a season. From what I heard, best case is a delay to Jan or spring but really, with a (safe) vaccine or herd immunity at least 12 months away (optimistically..), does delay the season really change anything? I think the season is gone. If the goal was to just 'flatten the curve' to avoid hospital crunches, hockey would be played on time. The goal seems to be now "not to spread covid" given the unknowns with the virus and that will be a much longer process.
With that said, I think eligibility will be on a school-by-school basis, just like spring sports went. Some players may redshirt or withdraw for this year to retain eligibility (if the coaches still want them), some freshman coming in may be asked to take a gap year. Some schools (like Wisconsin did for the spring sports) will tell their seniors to graduate and their athletic careers are over at the school. Some schools may have to cut back on aid due to financial pressures. It is going to be wild-wild west for all the student-athletes and programs....
With that said, I think eligibility will be on a school-by-school basis, just like spring sports went. Some players may redshirt or withdraw for this year to retain eligibility (if the coaches still want them), some freshman coming in may be asked to take a gap year. Some schools (like Wisconsin did for the spring sports) will tell their seniors to graduate and their athletic careers are over at the school. Some schools may have to cut back on aid due to financial pressures. It is going to be wild-wild west for all the student-athletes and programs....
EMPTYNETTER
New member
When I hear "From what I heard", I have to ask....from whom did you hear this?
ZedLeppelin
Motormouth
That's been in the back of my mind since the season ended in March, and I hate the thought. I can't imagine a winter without college hockey.
That makes sense, because schools are going to have a mess on their hands if hockey is cancelled this season. Does everyone get a redshirt year? Do schools hold students to a four-year academic schedule, regardless of any cuts in sports scheduling? Without sports bringing in the money schools rely on, are scholarships affected by cuts in sports schedules?
I don't remember where I saw it, but at the end of the season in March I read speculation somewhere that maybe the 2020-21 season would be played, but with a drastically reduced fan base allowed inside the arena (something like "parents only" or something like that). That doesn't do much to fix the financial picture for schools, with such a loss in ticket sales and concession purchases. Speaking of which, Penn State hasn't sent out an email to season ticket holders about renewing for the 2020-21 season yet, and I think that's usually done by now, so we'll see.
robertearle
Well-known member
I don't think that is an accurate representation of what Wisconsin told their students (though it isn't particularly clear that it isn't inaccurate, either).
I know I made reference to this here previously, but in an article from April, at least one UW track senior said she was told by the track coach "she was welcome to return to the team for her final season of outdoor eligibility in 2021 if she could pay her own way."
That is, what Wisconsin said was they "would not pursue an additional year of eligibility" for seniors; I don't think that necessarily equates to "their athletic careers are over" at Wisconsin. I think it means that 1) the school won't pursue a "sixth year' on the clock, and 2) if a student has a 'fifth year' available to them and wants to use it, they will have to do so while not on scholarship.
I have seen nothing further on the subject since that article.
https://madison.com/wsj/sports/colle...33cd41c6d.html
I think it'll be easier to manage the incoming freshmen than the outgoing seniors. I'm already hearing that some freshmen are taking a gap year here in Ontario which will push down the girls that should have been moving up to the PWHL. Having said that, there may not be a hockey season here either so the question becomes: do you go for your freshman year and practice/workout under the supervision of the team staff or do you stay home and try to maintain/develop your skill set that way? At least they have a future with the team/school.
As a senior it would be much harder to accept that you couldn't play in your last year, or that you now have to consider adding a year (potentially at your expense).
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
The non-Olympic players have no money making hockey in their future after college, which means they all need to get that degree as quickly as possible to get a job. Because if this, if I was in incoming Fr, the big picture is I give up a year of hockey to get into the workforce in 4 years.
To get a sense of how things might shake out it is worth looking at what happened to D1 spring sports. Ivies didn’t allow athletes to take the additional year of eligibility the NCAA allowed. Other schools which have limited grad programs didn't allow it either. Ivies didn’t allow athletes to withdraw and then re-enroll to preserve their eligibility. (See Princeton lacrosse star Michael Sowers)
Beyond the Ivies, some schools offered to keep seniors for a 5th year, but ended up cutting younger players, or taking away scholarships. This caused the transfer portal to explode. Bottom line- there is no easy answer and someone will get the short end of the stick if seasons get reduced or canceled. Not even going to discuss the new ICE rules for international students....whole other mess right there
Beyond the Ivies, some schools offered to keep seniors for a 5th year, but ended up cutting younger players, or taking away scholarships. This caused the transfer portal to explode. Bottom line- there is no easy answer and someone will get the short end of the stick if seasons get reduced or canceled. Not even going to discuss the new ICE rules for international students....whole other mess right there
robertearle
Well-known member
Ugh... Hadn't even thought of that. Canada is a foreign country?! Who knew!
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
At this point, we don't know how the world beyond sports will be impacted. Should a student rush to start college this fall, when there is at least a decent chance that students will be sent home again and teaching will regress to online-only? In some fields, that represents a greater impact than in others, but it should at least be considered by everyone. A huge part of my college education came via interacting with other students outside of the classroom. I'd be hesitant to sacrifice that.
What will prospects for getting a job look like in four or five years? Four or five months? Four or five weeks? The usual prediction models are on unfamiliar ground. If I was paying for at least a percentage of my education and had the option of doing something else (e.g. working in a family business), I would seriously consider deferring a year.
ManBehindTheCurtain
Great and powerful wizard
men’s and women’s fencing, field hockey, lightweight rowing, men’s rowing, co-ed and women’s sailing, squash, synchronized swimming, men’s volleyball and wrestling
Stanford's cuts is very surprising and worrying, much worse than even I as a athletic financials pessimist, would not have guessed. They have over a $27B endowment, get P5 football money and still can't make it a go financially for some of the "Olympic" sports. I am afraid this is the first domino to fall to a major restructure (and lot less support) of athletics. If Stanford is making this kind of cut, who really is safe and how do other, much less financially strong universities, justify their continued 'investment' in non-revenue sports?
Reddington
Well-known member
That's terrible news. People looking to commit in November for any sports can officially start sweating bullets. My analogy: I don't receive any offers for life insurance anymore, I used to receive 5 a month. If there are no sports this year, there is no certainty that there will be sports the year after that so during uncertainty ,a school will not encumber its books. (It already looks like they are taking this year on the chin.) The wild west comment someone made seems to be apt.
Starting in Jan is a nice way of keeping you at the school even though they know the year is already cancelled. (Just like every school district kept all kids in K-12 dangling until Mem Day.)
Starting in Jan is a nice way of keeping you at the school even though they know the year is already cancelled. (Just like every school district kept all kids in K-12 dangling until Mem Day.)
I think these schools are pretty cowardly. They always say follow the science yet when the American Association of Pediatrics and the FDA strongly says kids should go to school, that science is ignored. And there is no significant risk difference between a 16-17 year old who would be in high school and an 18-19 year old in college so don't try to make that distinction.
The other argument will be that these old fossil professors will be at risk. Well, they aren't playing sports or going to the games. Stay home. They should be teaching. If my dental hygienist can clean teeth with a mask and shield on two inches from my face, a professor can wear the same 10 feet from any student. If masks don't work, why are we forced to wear them?
We've gone from flatten the curve (which happened) to lower the death count (which happened) to now, "there are terrible long term possible effects" so we all need to stay indoors and wear masks for the next two years. These student athletes have virtually no risk and if someone would actually test them, most of them have the antibodies already. Its very frustrating to say the least.
The other argument will be that these old fossil professors will be at risk. Well, they aren't playing sports or going to the games. Stay home. They should be teaching. If my dental hygienist can clean teeth with a mask and shield on two inches from my face, a professor can wear the same 10 feet from any student. If masks don't work, why are we forced to wear them?
We've gone from flatten the curve (which happened) to lower the death count (which happened) to now, "there are terrible long term possible effects" so we all need to stay indoors and wear masks for the next two years. These student athletes have virtually no risk and if someone would actually test them, most of them have the antibodies already. Its very frustrating to say the least.
Offsides Guy
Active member
Stanford is full of crap. They have an endowment of $27.7 BILLION as of 2019 and they can’t fund 11 sports? Ridiculous!
robertearle
Well-known member
Antibody tests are so inaccurate as to be pointless. So many 'false positive' results that getting a positive result tells you essentially nothing.