NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

[TheRevengeance]

In 2016, 16.2% of college students in the US were between the ages of 25 and 29. (source: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_303.40.asp)

In the 2018–19 NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season, 7.1% of the players were 25+ years old. (source: Elite Prospects and some arithmetic)

And we're done here folks.

 

[broncoinak]

And we're done here folks.

No kidding. What a ridiculous premise.

 

[duper]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

In 2016, 16.2% of college students in the US were between the ages of 25 and 29. (source: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_303.40.asp)

In the 2018–19 NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season, 7.1% of the players were born before 1995. (source: Elite Prospects and some arithmetic)

I suspected this was the case; I'm so glad someone did the 38 seconds of work to find the data.

 

[J.D.]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

Poster says most college kids are between 18-23. Someone points out that 16% are between 25 and 29...and somehow that is supposed to dispute that most college kids are 18-23.

Also, I have no idea what 7% of players being 25+ proves other than that's 7% more than there should be. If you're somehow saying it proves it's not a big problem, only Mason Jobst stands out as being 25. It's not taking into account 24 year old seniors or players who leave for pro hockey at 23 etc. And obviously doesn't factor in 21 year old freshmen. But hey, numbers! Ya!

 

[broncoinak]

Poster says most college kids are between 18-23. Someone points out that 16% are between 25 and 29...and somehow that is supposed to dispute that most college kids are 18-23.

Also, I have no idea what 7% of players being 25+ proves other than that's 7% more than there should be. If you're somehow saying it proves it's not a big problem, only Mason Jobst stands out as being 25. It's not taking into account 24 year old seniors or players who leave for pro hockey at 23 etc. And obviously doesn't factor in 21 year old freshmen. But hey, numbers! Ya!

The point is that hockey players aren't anywhere near a radically different age group as some here want you to believe.

This is meaningless because the rules aren't changing and we certainly aren't making any difference arguing about it. What's nauseating is the crocodile tears from blue blood fans pretending they care about players' welfare or some such nonsense.

FWIW, WMU is one of the younger teams in the country these days. It's the program's choice like any other and has its upsides and downsides. That's not a reason to handcuff other programs when 85% of the college hockey programs are against it.

 

[eaglekeeper]

So I see the supporters of the "big" college hockey schools continue to complain because they're not winning as much as they used to. Must be tough stacking your teams with NHL draft picks.

Maybe we should bring back DII hockey. Leave about 10 programs in DI (your BC, BU, Minnesota, etc) that can fill up with 18 year olds, and let the schools that are starting to actually upstage them now go to DII. That should make those big schools happy.

BTW, my list of three schools I noted ... all three have had their stacked programs lose to teams that are older, and had their coaches complained about it.

Do you see BC complaining in football and basketball that they cannot compete with the elite teams and win titles? Do they complain in baseball? No, they show up and they compete. Stop your crying and leave the college game to college age kids. If UML never wins a NC, it will not be due to having the same age players as BC & BU.

 

[eaglekeeper]

Because the coaches can! There is no where for the coaches to put 18 and 19 year old football or basketball players that will further their development. Some of you are picking unusual circumstances to justify your position. The fact is that the majority of the players are much better hockey players after a year or two of junior hockey. The junior hockey system is a unique opportunity for NCAA coaches to improve the product on the ice. NCAA hockey would NOT be as good if it was full of 18 year old freshman that have never played beyond high school hockey. The product is improved by using Junior hockey to develop the players first.

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.

 

[UMLFan]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

Do you see BC complaining in football and basketball that they cannot compete with the elite teams and win titles?

Actually yes. It's hilarious on Twitter after they lose games. One season in and "Fire Coach X!"

BC in football, basketball, baseball et al competes with the same rules as everyone else in their respective sports, and doesn't win. They're also not a legit "elite" program in either sport, some parts due to their own academic constraints, location, etc. In hockey, they're an "elite" program party due to exactly the opposite reasons. And their history.

Stop your crying and leave the college game to college age kids. If UML never wins a NC, it will not be due to having the same age players as BC & BU.

Where am I crying? I'm pretty amused when I see the people (and the schools they represent) who want the age limit.

And just to clarify, I've made it clear on these boards for years that I'd prefer even Lowell not having 21 year old freshmen (they'll have two at puck drop on the season opener this season). But I understand why programs do what they do, and it's not against the rules.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

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.

 

[Lost_Husky]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

I think that the difference here is maybe whether college athletes are viewed fundamentally as kids who are developing a skill (which would be a pretty legit reason to insulate them within a limited age group, as high school sports governing bodies tend to do) vs being viewed as adults.

I tend to view them as fundamentally adults, which makes me see no reason to protect them from playing against older, potentially more physically developed players. But I also have 2 other reasons why I don't like the idea of imposing a maximum age. One is that some players may have to reach their physical peak in order to be able to compete at a college level. If there is a player whose talent maxes out at NCAA ability level, and he doesn't reach that level until he's 20 or 21 as opposed to 18, I can't imagine having a problem with that. Second, I suspect that there are a handful of players who, while playing in the Juniors have realized that they are not destined for the NHL. If, on the other hand, they can use the talent they do have to get a scholarship to pay for an education, I can't imagine thinking that should be taken away from them just because they aren't 18 years old when they make that decision.



False

All of this is about winning, he says to no ones surprise. There are only so many elite 18 year old players out there. Schools like Minnesota, Michigan, BC, BU,... get the vast majority of this college bound group. To compete schools like UMD, MsUM, Union,... go after junior players to close the skill gap.

As referenced before, if football or basketball had a league, like juniors, where players maintained their NCAA eligibility, non-blue chip schools would be going after 20-21 year-olds to close the skill gap.

 

[Lemonade]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

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.

 

[Lemonade]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

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.

 

[Split-N]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

...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).

 

[J.D.]

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?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

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.

 

[Lemonade]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

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.

 

[SJHovey]

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?

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.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

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.

 

[islander98]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

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?

 

[Lemonade]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

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.