WiscTJK
Well-known member
Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting
Never said it wasn't and I don't disagree. Just wanted it to be correct.
Never said it wasn't and I don't disagree. Just wanted it to be correct.
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.
NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting
- Thread starter J.D.
- Start date
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting
Settle down buddy. When did I type, "ridiculous" or "absurd" in this thread? Also the program I follow wins far more often than not already and will always be that way no matter the rules. I've already said I don't feel strongly about this topic but if I read a weak argument I don't mind speaking out against them. I repeat my counter to some of them is that there being non-athlete students aged 25+ has nothing to do with the ages of actual student-athletes, and since the vast, vast majority of all student athletes are not 25+ why is hockey different and what makes it ok? What is better for the overall game? I do feel having athletes that age lessens the college game but it doesn't pain me enough to abandon the sport nor stop cheering for my program nor the sport itself.
I will take the low road for one moment though and say to you maybe try being honest? Its OK to say, "I only care about this because it would help my sh**y program win games".
Settle down buddy. When did I type, "ridiculous" or "absurd" in this thread? Also the program I follow wins far more often than not already and will always be that way no matter the rules. I've already said I don't feel strongly about this topic but if I read a weak argument I don't mind speaking out against them. I repeat my counter to some of them is that there being non-athlete students aged 25+ has nothing to do with the ages of actual student-athletes, and since the vast, vast majority of all student athletes are not 25+ why is hockey different and what makes it ok? What is better for the overall game? I do feel having athletes that age lessens the college game but it doesn't pain me enough to abandon the sport nor stop cheering for my program nor the sport itself.
I will take the low road for one moment though and say to you maybe try being honest? Its OK to say, "I only care about this because it would help my sh**y program win games".
islander98
New member
Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting
While I commend you on your attempt to focus the debate on an argument that supports your perspective, I respectfully disagree. The debate is whether having 21 year old freshman is good for college hockey. I am certain that the premier programs will always get the best of the younger players, if they want them. But you acknowledge that those star 18 year olds have a difficult time playing against the 24 year olds. Then why not leave them in Junior for a year or two more, then they can compete and possibly excel? Wouldn't this then lead to even better quality of play for the elite programs?
The reason that the supporters of the elite programs don't like the 21 year old freshman is because it evens the playing field. It creates more parity in the leagues thereby leading to more competitive games and more enjoyment for the fans. The smaller programs have a reasonable opportunity to win because they have adapted WITHIN the rules and focused on playing to their strengths. They can offer older players who may have developed a bit later than the stars, a quality education and a chance to play the game they love. Isn't that what college sports are about? The parity is a positive thing. Maybe the elite programs need to recruit better so that they sign hockey players who have no interest in their education and are only using college as a development ground to go pro. At the first sniff of a chance to play pro, they leave because they were not there for the education in the first place. In my humble opinion, those elite players who are only using college hockey to further their HOCKEY careers with no interest in education, should stay in Junior hockey. I liek the parity that the current situation creates. It makes the hockey more fun for more people. my two pennies
While I commend you on your attempt to focus the debate on an argument that supports your perspective, I respectfully disagree. The debate is whether having 21 year old freshman is good for college hockey. I am certain that the premier programs will always get the best of the younger players, if they want them. But you acknowledge that those star 18 year olds have a difficult time playing against the 24 year olds. Then why not leave them in Junior for a year or two more, then they can compete and possibly excel? Wouldn't this then lead to even better quality of play for the elite programs?
The reason that the supporters of the elite programs don't like the 21 year old freshman is because it evens the playing field. It creates more parity in the leagues thereby leading to more competitive games and more enjoyment for the fans. The smaller programs have a reasonable opportunity to win because they have adapted WITHIN the rules and focused on playing to their strengths. They can offer older players who may have developed a bit later than the stars, a quality education and a chance to play the game they love. Isn't that what college sports are about? The parity is a positive thing. Maybe the elite programs need to recruit better so that they sign hockey players who have no interest in their education and are only using college as a development ground to go pro. At the first sniff of a chance to play pro, they leave because they were not there for the education in the first place. In my humble opinion, those elite players who are only using college hockey to further their HOCKEY careers with no interest in education, should stay in Junior hockey. I liek the parity that the current situation creates. It makes the hockey more fun for more people. my two pennies
Last edited:
JohnsonsJerseys
Michigan Tech Fan
Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting
The big programs don't want their talent to play another year of junior hockey and get stronger / older because it is another year for "advisers" to get in their ear and convince them to skip NCAA hockey completely and play major junior or turn pro.
Ryan
The big programs don't want their talent to play another year of junior hockey and get stronger / older because it is another year for "advisers" to get in their ear and convince them to skip NCAA hockey completely and play major junior or turn pro.
Ryan
Nick Papagiorgio
Holding court
Truth is, a lot of these top recruits choose a school that will put them on the team right out of HS. If they make them play junior hockey first, they’ll go elsewhere whether that’s another school or minor league/major juniors. That’s on them. Anybody who is arguing it’s not fair to put these poor lil boys on the ice against a 23-24 year old (or occasionally 25 26 in rare circumstances) clearly hasn’t watched junior hockey leagues which is 5x more violent than college.
There’s far more reasons not related to hockey why the current rules benefit college hockey overall. IIRC hockey has the highest graduation rate amongst NCAA sports or at least amongst the top. A lot of 18-19 year old males are not mature enough for it and the education they get to remain eligible is a joke. High talent guys straight out of HS only using NCAA as a stepping stone to pros are a waste of a scholarship. We should try to make college hockey more like football and basketball where college is just a joke and technicality?
And I’m sick of people throwing around the age 25 as if it’s some loophole teams use to cheat the system. These are guys who had to be redshirted, or had to sit out a year from transferring (after a full stint in the juniors). Hardly anything that is in the usual nor are they ever some top prospect
Slap Shot
I got nothing
duper
Well-known member
islander98
New member
Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting
It's difficult to have a debate with people when their only argument is that it isn't fair and we can't win all the time. In every other sport, rules that create parity in the game are usually considered to be for the benefit of the game and the fans. Just saying
It's difficult to have a debate with people when their only argument is that it isn't fair and we can't win all the time. In every other sport, rules that create parity in the game are usually considered to be for the benefit of the game and the fans. Just saying
duper
Well-known member
Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting
I don't know; I don't think I actually see this thread that way. I see this as a debate between parity across the sport v physical parity between players on the ice. I'm sure that some people are arguing from a selfish perspective, but it honestly seems to me that this has mostly been a legit discussion of 2 different ways of seeing the same thing. For sure, nothing anyone has said has swayed me to think much differently about it then I already did, but I also haven't felt like "they" just want things to be better for their teams.
I don't know; I don't think I actually see this thread that way. I see this as a debate between parity across the sport v physical parity between players on the ice. I'm sure that some people are arguing from a selfish perspective, but it honestly seems to me that this has mostly been a legit discussion of 2 different ways of seeing the same thing. For sure, nothing anyone has said has swayed me to think much differently about it then I already did, but I also haven't felt like "they" just want things to be better for their teams.
First Time Long Time
Rebuilding
Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting
9 '04's commit this past week.
9 '04's commit this past week.
Let's see how many actually play for the school they committed to.
First Time Long Time
Rebuilding
Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting
Couple '05's in there as well...
Couple '05's in there as well...
QUAlum2004
Well-known member
Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting
They should have implemented the restrictions immediately once it passed instead of waiting until May 1st.
They should have implemented the restrictions immediately once it passed instead of waiting until May 1st.
First Time Long Time
Rebuilding
I do find it interesting all these young kids are committing to 6-7 schools...
Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting
For those that like records, I believe Anthony Cipollone is still the youngest commitment ever. 13 years 2 months to Vermont. And he's still committed there!
Top 4 based on my records:
Cipollone - Vermont - 1/2015 - 13 years 2 months (still committed)
Levis - Michigan - 2/2018 - 13 years 4 months 18 days (still committed)
Lucius - Minnesota - 8/2017 - 13 years 4 months 27 days (still committed)
Not sure if anyone between here and...
Wahlstrom - Maine - 1/2014 - 13 years 6 months (lol not so committed anywhere)
For those that like records, I believe Anthony Cipollone is still the youngest commitment ever. 13 years 2 months to Vermont. And he's still committed there!
Top 4 based on my records:
Cipollone - Vermont - 1/2015 - 13 years 2 months (still committed)
Levis - Michigan - 2/2018 - 13 years 4 months 18 days (still committed)
Lucius - Minnesota - 8/2017 - 13 years 4 months 27 days (still committed)
Not sure if anyone between here and...
Wahlstrom - Maine - 1/2014 - 13 years 6 months (lol not so committed anywhere)
Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting
To add to this, for those that like data, I went and looked at the trends for Hockey East recruits who committed before they hit age 16, to see how many kids keep/are keeping those commitments versus those who did not. From what I gathered, 42/62 (67+%) players who committed to a Hockey East school before the age of 16 between 2011 and 2017 (excluding Notre Dame) have arrived on campus of their original school, or are still committed to that school. Of the 20 who did not keep it, 11 went to another D1 school. This data obviously can't be extrapolated across all of D1 and doesn't necessarily reflect all 60 programs, but it's at least a talking point and something to consider
Here's the full thread of what I found: https://twitter.com/NUHockeyBlog/status/1123604737356701696
To add to this, for those that like data, I went and looked at the trends for Hockey East recruits who committed before they hit age 16, to see how many kids keep/are keeping those commitments versus those who did not. From what I gathered, 42/62 (67+%) players who committed to a Hockey East school before the age of 16 between 2011 and 2017 (excluding Notre Dame) have arrived on campus of their original school, or are still committed to that school. Of the 20 who did not keep it, 11 went to another D1 school. This data obviously can't be extrapolated across all of D1 and doesn't necessarily reflect all 60 programs, but it's at least a talking point and something to consider
Here's the full thread of what I found: https://twitter.com/NUHockeyBlog/status/1123604737356701696