NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

[TheRevengeance]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

I'm glad to see this thread has devolved to one side posting data and one side (not so coincidentally headed by two BC fans and a BU fan) yelling about how wrong it FEELS.

 

[broncoinak]

I'm glad to see this thread has devolved to one side posting data and one side (not so coincidentally headed by two BC fans and a BU fan) yelling about how wrong it FEELS.

Won't someone think of the kids!!

 

[eaglekeeper]

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.

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.

Complaining about coaching is not complaining about the rules of eligibility. Hockey is the only sport where fans of so called smaller, non elite schools complain that the NCAA must due something to create parity. The NCAA limits the number of scholarships to create parity. It’s coaching that includes recruiting that wins championships. Shawn Walsh proved that any school can recruit top talent. Using kids by delaying their college career more than one year is ridiculous. What makes hockey entertaining is watching skill players create and score goals, not watching 24-25 year olds smash the 18 year old skill players against the boards, it’s boring.

 

[First Time Long Time]

Complaining about coaching is not complaining about the rules of eligibility. Hockey is the only sport where fans of so called smaller, non elite schools complain that the NCAA must due something to create parity. The NCAA limits the number of scholarships to create parity. It’s coaching that includes recruiting that wins championships. Shawn Walsh proved that any school can recruit top talent. Using kids by delaying their college career more than one year is ridiculous. What makes hockey entertaining is watching skill players create and score goals, not watching 24-25 year olds smash the 18 year old skill players against the boards, it’s boring.

Coaches aren't paid to entertain you...they are paid to win.
If having older players helps them win...so be it.
Limiting the age of freshmen would kill junior hockey in the US and kill D1 opportunities for some kids who flat out aren't ready right out of high school.

 

[Slap Shot]

Coaches aren't paid to entertain you...they are paid to win.
If having older players helps them win...so be it.
Limiting the age of freshmen would kill junior hockey in the US and kill D1 opportunities for some kids who flat out aren't ready right out of high school.

How? Who would take the place of all those "not ready" kids? Whoever these mystery players are all schools would have access to them. Also wouldn't not having to play against 24, 25, 26 y.o.'s actually increase the readiness for many younger recruits?

Not directing this at you but are the arguements against these proposed changes really being thoroughly thought out?

 

[duper]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

What planet is that a 26 year old is a normal aged college kid? I get the data is skewed - some 75 year old people go back to school to take classes....if you are 26 and still in an undergraduate program you are not the norm. You either messed around for a 5 years after high school or your should be cast in the next Animal House.

Lets circle back - THERE IS NO OTHER NCAA SPORT - EVEN WOMENS HOCKEY - that works like NCAA hockey does by essentially requires multiple years of junior level play before going to college.

Just for debate - say NCAA requires players to enroll within a year after HS graduation...whats the issue? Whats the drawback of having 18-23 year old kids playing against 18-23 old players in college?

You are really invested in this idea that there's something weird about a 26-year-old undergrad. It's comical at this point.

But, you asked a question. What's the drawback of changing the rules to make... The drawback is that changing of rules should be done to correct a problem. I don't see a problem. The percentage of NCAA hockey players over the age of 24 is lower than the percentage of undergrads under 24. Even if it wasn't lower, I still don't think there's a problem.

Here's the funny thing: I don't give a crap about the whole argument. The only reason I commented in this thread at all is because I thought I could get an answer to the question I've always wondered, which is whether there is a legit reason I hadn't thought of why Minnesota refused to play Denver all those years ago. With that in mind, I asked what the reason was for making that rule change. I got more invested in the thread when you came along with your frankly absurd comment about normal college-aged kids. I mean, maybe when you were in college you never noticed that for every 4 or 5 teenagers in your class there was someone in their late 20s. That's fair. I noticed, and I never thought it was weird. I think you claiming it's abnormal is weird. LOL

Edit: I think the last thing I probably have to say on this subject is that, if the NCAA made a rule change to impose an age limit, it would not bother me at all. I just don't see the point, and making rules in order to solve non-problems is weird.

 

[davyd83]

How have I not answered the question? My opinion is easy to understand. I don't think you should have 24 year olds against 18 year olds in college hockey. Emphasis on college. You can disagree but don't be obtuse about it. If you really want it spelled out for you, a 21 year old freshman coming off multiple years in juniors is a lot more physically mature than an 18 year old freshman. As I said you can disagree but this isn't some new complaint that hasn't been brought up before.

It’s no different than 16 year old boys playing against 20-21 year old men in Junior.

 

[davyd83]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

So some think there’s a problem with 18 vs 24 in college, but not 16 vs 21 in junior or 18 vs 32 in the AHL or NHL. I don’t get it...

 

[UMLFan]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

Hockey is the only sport where fans of so called smaller, non elite schools complain that the NCAA must due something to create parity.

Wait, who's complaining?

The "smaller, non elite schools" have the rules behind them, and it's been that way for years.

 

[CanalPark]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

I disagree that quality of play in college hockey is declining, I think the opposite. It appears that 3 of the top 10 picks in the upcoming NHL Draft will be playing college hockey next year. Just look at what UMD has produced the past few years. There are guys who weren’t super stars and stayed four years that are skating in the NHL. I feel the quality is better than ever and top-tier talent are choosing college hockey.

I feel the big change to the landscape is how much better the A- recruits are now. In my opinion, they have really closed the gap between those players and the A rated recruits that chose Minnesota, Boston U, and Boston College in the past. You could argue the same phenomenon has changed the NCAA Basketball landscape too. A team that gets A- recruits that stay 3-4 years can compete with a team built around 1st and 2nd round picks that stay a year or two.

 

[UMD21]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

Why is it when the “blue bloods” are winning championships nobody is in a rage saying college hockey should follow other NCAA sport rules in that drafted players should be ineligible to play college hockey, yet when they aren’t winning here they are blaming it on older college players and crying for rule changes? And Slappy says UMD fans are poor sports... take your midol.
Just go petition the USHL to disband or change their rules. They have a limit of number of 20 year old players on a roster in the fall, so it’s a fairly small number and those old guys would only be a year older.
Other than that, redshirt and transfer rules which apply to all sports is the only other reason you have players who are maybe 25 or 26.
At the end of the day since the Big 10 is the only power five conference in college hockey, they have the power to single handedly change the rules when they decide 12+ years is too long to go without a national title. Don’t think we won’t notice if that’s what they do. The question is: does the Big 10 even care enough about hockey to even bother..

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

Jeebus you small schoolers sure are a bunch of hypocrites. Big schools are the only ones pushing agendas? Lol.

JD was right. What happens when the big school start to take the older players? The small schools will have nothing to ***** about. Then again, I have faith they'll find something to get up on the cross about. Maybe it’s time to buy some stock in Fastenal.

 

[J.D.]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

So some think there’s a problem with 18 vs 24 in college, but not 16 vs 21 in junior or 18 vs 32 in the AHL or NHL. I don’t get it...

Sorry but comparing college hockey to the AHL or NHL is pointless. Those are professional leagues. And I have already said that I find a 16 year old playing against a 21 year old in junior hockey absurd as well.

 

[First Time Long Time]

How? Who would take the place of all those "not ready" kids? Whoever these mystery players are all schools would have access to them. Also wouldn't not having to play against 24, 25, 26 y.o.'s actually increase the readiness for many younger recruits?

Not directing this at you but are the arguements against these proposed changes really being thoroughly thought out?

Not if the kid isn't getting D1 offers until after high school. Maybe coaches end up extending offers anyway because they have to fill up rosters...but there are kids who haven't matured either physically or in their gamee to warrant a D1 offer. It's what juniors is for.
Conversely there have been kids who got D1 offers early and ended up playing their way out of them in juniors and ended up in D3.

 

[islander98]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

Not if the kid isn't getting D1 offers until after high school. Maybe coaches end up extending offers anyway because they have to fill up rosters...but there are kids who haven't matured either physically or in their gamee to warrant a D1 offer. It's what juniors is for.
Conversely there have been kids who got D1 offers early and ended up playing their way out of them in juniors and ended up in D3.

I still don't understand why some think the current situation is a problem? Each school can determine the composition of their team. Everyone plays by the same rules. There are so many examples of both scenarios. 16 year olds who never "reach their potential" and "kids that come out of nowhere". As a coach for more than 30 years at many levels, I know that all of them develop differently.

I think that the schools find that the maturity that the older hockey players bring to the team and to the campus is a welcome addition. Sitting in a class room with a few 'older' freshman is not a detriment to the school. Most teachers feel that a mix of age and experience enhances the class room experience. I don't see a problem. Let the schools determine what is best for their hockey program and their school. Some of these late bloomers are actually pretty good students and good people. Why do we need to exclude them?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

One problem that I don't think gets adequately discussed with proposals like this is how the current rules really do benefit college hockey in general.

First, the players are more developed and more talented, so the game should be better.

But second, and more importantly, the current rules allow a program to develop from one that needs to rely upon the 20 or 21 year old freshmen to compete into a program that can attract the 18 year old freshmen blue chip recruits. The program that I follow, North Dakota, is a prime example of that.

There is no question that currently North Dakota's program is capable of attracting the highest level of recruit to college hockey, kids that will be first round NHL draft picks. But that wasn't always the case. In fact, in the 1950's and 60's, as the program was growing and developing, North Dakota was frequently lumped in with Denver or similar programs as ones relying upon "overaged" Canadians to fill out their programs and compete. That was true. North Dakota is not in the middle of prime hockey recruiting ground, and without a history they needed to bring in older kids from Canada. But, by doing so and building the program, they can now attract kids who are top flight talent even at 18 or 19.

I can see other programs doing that as well. We've seen non-traditional programs like Quinnipiac, UMass-Lowell, etc..., maybe rely upon some older recruits as their programs has been building, but may start attracting first round draft pick caliber kids as their program develops a stronger winning tradition.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

Why is it when the “blue bloods” are winning championships nobody is in a rage saying college hockey should follow other NCAA sport rules in that drafted players should be ineligible to play college hockey, yet when they aren’t winning here they are blaming it on older college players and crying for rule changes? And Slappy says UMD fans are poor sports... take your midol.

No one is in a rage, this topic never goes away no matter who at the present time is dominating the landscape, and I myself am not strongly advocating for any changes. I do think it's a legitimate discussion and there are valid arguments to be made on both ends, and I sometimes interject if I see something illogical. Also every program has an agenda so you can climb out of that ivory tower.

I still don't understand why some think the current situation is a problem? Each school can determine the composition of their team. Everyone plays by the same rules.

Everyone would play by the same rules if they were changed as well.

Not if the kid isn't getting D1 offers until after high school.

I don't agree that they wouldn't get offers if the rules were changed.

 

[UMLFan]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

If we went back and limited to a certain age ... saying 19 years old as a freshman (one year out of high school max) ... don't you think it would actually hurt college hockey. There's a finite amount of kids that can come up and play as 18 year olds. They'd continue to get recruited by the "elite" programs. The same applies to 19. So now you've got the "elites" and the next level down that are recruiting them. IMHO, the next level of player down is then getting recruited by programs that will never have a shot to do anything because there really aren't enough 18/19 year old freshmen ready to play DI hockey. That causes a) a talent problem for college hockey which b) results in a worse NCAA DI experience for viewers.

Again, this is all IMHO.

 

[UMD21]

Jeebus you small schoolers sure are a bunch of hypocrites. Big schools are the only ones pushing agendas? Lol.

JD was right. What happens when the big school start to take the older players? The small schools will have nothing to ***** about. Then again, I have faith they'll find something to get up on the cross about. Maybe it’s time to buy some stock in Fastenal.

What agenda and rule changes are small schools advocating for? These are rules that have been in place for decades, possibly dating back to the beginning of D1 college hockey. It’s the big schools who are trying to change them. The only thing the small schools are doing is calling them out for trying to change the rules to benefit themselves.
What happens when big schools start to go after older players? I’d call that adaptation. I expect Motzko to start doing that

 

[SJHovey]

Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

JD was right. What happens when the big school start to take the older players? The small schools will have nothing to ***** about. Then again, I have faith they'll find something to get up on the cross about. Maybe it’s time to buy some stock in Fastenal.

I've got news for you. The big schools are taking older players. By my count, and looking at Heisenberg's site, between Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, they'll have 11 players coming in this year who will be 20 or 21 by the time their freshman season starts in October. For Minnesota alone, Close (21), Sorenson (20), Meyers (21 in November), McGregor (20) and Moe (20) all fit the bill.

But the difference is that the big schools use the older kids to fill out rosters (they would never fill one out with an 18 year old who's not ready, but is 18) and to replace kids who were recruited early but didn't pan out. The smaller schools have fewer blue chip players and thus have to rely upon more of the older kids who have played some juniors and are starting to develop.