It's not just Delaney. It's Red. It's Anastos. It's Lucia. It's Barry Alvarez and all the coaches and AD's. Take away the AHA games and the non conference record is abysmal. It had to be stopped.
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.
New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
- Thread starter UMLFan
- Start date
Critical Thinker
Lady of the Lake, Sword Distributor
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
What do you mean Rutgers didn't work out? The B1G got the New York TV market because of it. That's all they ever wanted out of Rutgers.
What do you mean Rutgers didn't work out? The B1G got the New York TV market because of it. That's all they ever wanted out of Rutgers.
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
Here's a blog post that puts a great perspective on this whole thing:
http://www.withoutapeer.com/2015/11/a-rigged-game.html
Here's a blog post that puts a great perspective on this whole thing:
http://www.withoutapeer.com/2015/11/a-rigged-game.html
aparch
Acetaminamerican
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
For thirteen years, Tom Anastos watched college hockey flourish under his leadership of the CCHA. But now that he is currently 32-39-11 (.457) as a head coach, it's apparently all the small schools fault in recruiting "overaged canadians" that his team sucks and can't win games.
No problem with schools recruiting the would-be 25 year old seniors when he controlled 12 teams. Now that he controls one, it's a problem.
For thirteen years, Tom Anastos watched college hockey flourish under his leadership of the CCHA. But now that he is currently 32-39-11 (.457) as a head coach, it's apparently all the small schools fault in recruiting "overaged canadians" that his team sucks and can't win games.
No problem with schools recruiting the would-be 25 year old seniors when he controlled 12 teams. Now that he controls one, it's a problem.
Split-N
All Hail
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
This is a tremendous read. So do yourselves a favor and read it, if you haven't already.
And to paraphrase an earlier post, the best thing that could possibly happen to college sports (not just hockey) would be for the Power-5 to breakaway, do its own thing with its own kind, and let college sports go back to being college sports.
This is a tremendous read. So do yourselves a favor and read it, if you haven't already.
And to paraphrase an earlier post, the best thing that could possibly happen to college sports (not just hockey) would be for the Power-5 to breakaway, do its own thing with its own kind, and let college sports go back to being college sports.
Excellent post. It's one thing that it's even something that was put forth. It's another, to me, that the B1G coaches did this on their own without roping in all of college hockey. That's bothersome.
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
Yes, it really was. Thanks to Red Cows for the original find.
The Exiled One
New member
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
Yet another view...
Current Minnesota Wild defenseman Christian Folin is certain this policy would have prevented him from playing in the NHL.
Yet another view...
Current Minnesota Wild defenseman Christian Folin is certain this policy would have prevented him from playing in the NHL.
alslammerz
Harvard Hockey Broadcaster '09-'12
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
Probably decrease, for two reasons.
1. From at least some comments online (from professors that CHN retweeted), older students are more able to handle both the workload and playing hockey.
2. Most players coming in at that age aren't playing in the NHL, so they are going to go through 4 years of college to graduate, as opposed to an 18-yo draft prospect who is more likely to jump to juniors (if even just by the virtue that they can) or sign a professional deal.
Probably decrease, for two reasons.
1. From at least some comments online (from professors that CHN retweeted), older students are more able to handle both the workload and playing hockey.
2. Most players coming in at that age aren't playing in the NHL, so they are going to go through 4 years of college to graduate, as opposed to an 18-yo draft prospect who is more likely to jump to juniors (if even just by the virtue that they can) or sign a professional deal.
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
I read that yesterday and my response was that his view is probably not true. He has the talent, and opportunities are quite often presented to talent. And he did leave Lowell after 2 years. But more importantly, it's completely irrelevant. I don't care if Folin's story, as great as it is, doesn't happen. NCAA policy shouldn't be driven by whether or not one, or an extra handful of guys, make it to the NHL.
1. 21 year olds are very likely more prepared than 18 year olds. How much more prepared they are than 20 year olds doesn't seem to be a part of most of these anecdotes.
2. This makes no sense to me. There isn't suddenly going to be a higher ratio of 18 year old draft picks going to the NHL coming in vs. older players just because they lower the age one year. For the most part, the very same guys would be coming into NCAA hockey. They would just be brought in a year earlier at 20, rather than be in juniors an extra year.
I read that yesterday and my response was that his view is probably not true. He has the talent, and opportunities are quite often presented to talent. And he did leave Lowell after 2 years. But more importantly, it's completely irrelevant. I don't care if Folin's story, as great as it is, doesn't happen. NCAA policy shouldn't be driven by whether or not one, or an extra handful of guys, make it to the NHL.
1. 21 year olds are very likely more prepared than 18 year olds. How much more prepared they are than 20 year olds doesn't seem to be a part of most of these anecdotes.
2. This makes no sense to me. There isn't suddenly going to be a higher ratio of 18 year old draft picks going to the NHL coming in vs. older players just because they lower the age one year. For the most part, the very same guys would be coming into NCAA hockey. They would just be brought in a year earlier at 20, rather than be in juniors an extra year.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
Students playing college hockey at 25 and 26 are less likely to have an NHL career as a player. The kids who come into the NCAA at 18, 19 and 20 are more likely to get serious looks from scouts, if they've not already been drafted. The head scout for the Bluejackets said as much in an article about Duvie Westcott when he was leaving SCSU for the pros, saying that at 24 he was on the cusp of not getting any attention because he was so old to just then be entering their system.
Students playing college hockey at 25 and 26 are less likely to have an NHL career as a player. The kids who come into the NCAA at 18, 19 and 20 are more likely to get serious looks from scouts, if they've not already been drafted. The head scout for the Bluejackets said as much in an article about Duvie Westcott when he was leaving SCSU for the pros, saying that at 24 he was on the cusp of not getting any attention because he was so old to just then be entering their system.
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
One thing I do not agree with in the article, though, is the contention that:
I personally do not think that ASU going D-1 portends anything. And, I think ASU still has a tough road ahead as they are in a unique situation where they are going "full D-1" next season with a non-pussified home and away schedule and have nowhere to play, really, at this writing. They are not viable at Oceanside Arena (capacity: 724) and they really aren't "viable", either, at Gila River, where they would have to share this public, multi-purpose facility, meaning they are not going to be able to practice there more often than not. So, their players will schlepping gear all over town every time they practice, in all likelihood, to say nothing of ASU controlling no revenue streams in such a building other than ticket sales. Then there is the political will necessary needed to build a facility for this program (read: provide the 80 million dollars plus needed for it).
The Big 10 could go a long way to to restoring competitive balance for them if they just fielded a truly viable league. 6 teams isn't a viable league, IMHO. Ask the CHA how that one is going for them. This would solve scheduling problems, add rivalries, make the league "more telegenic", and most importantly, add credibility. Presumably, in such a league, more players would be attracted to playing in such a league as well. Add Nebraska, who is less than 3 weeks from having the last piece of the puzzle in place for them to add both men's and women's hockey (It is indeed ironic that the one school in the nation that is the most ideally situated to add a program on short notice is, in fact, actually in the Big 10) Add another school and have the Big 10 subsidize it's start-up, somehow. I can think of a lot of ways that could be done to benefit everyone in the league, whether they have hockey or not. It would be in the league's competitive and financial interest for it to do so. It would also provide an image boost.
If I am a player, I don't see the Big 10 as an attractive option for me at just 6 teams, total. Blue blood hockey programs or not. I think this is one of the reasons for the fall from grace. This is also a bad time for the league for Red to be a bazillion years old, too. My son isn't signing at a program with a coach that is just about to turn 76.
One thing I do not agree with in the article, though, is the contention that:
I personally do not think that ASU going D-1 portends anything. And, I think ASU still has a tough road ahead as they are in a unique situation where they are going "full D-1" next season with a non-pussified home and away schedule and have nowhere to play, really, at this writing. They are not viable at Oceanside Arena (capacity: 724) and they really aren't "viable", either, at Gila River, where they would have to share this public, multi-purpose facility, meaning they are not going to be able to practice there more often than not. So, their players will schlepping gear all over town every time they practice, in all likelihood, to say nothing of ASU controlling no revenue streams in such a building other than ticket sales. Then there is the political will necessary needed to build a facility for this program (read: provide the 80 million dollars plus needed for it).
The Big 10 could go a long way to to restoring competitive balance for them if they just fielded a truly viable league. 6 teams isn't a viable league, IMHO. Ask the CHA how that one is going for them. This would solve scheduling problems, add rivalries, make the league "more telegenic", and most importantly, add credibility. Presumably, in such a league, more players would be attracted to playing in such a league as well. Add Nebraska, who is less than 3 weeks from having the last piece of the puzzle in place for them to add both men's and women's hockey (It is indeed ironic that the one school in the nation that is the most ideally situated to add a program on short notice is, in fact, actually in the Big 10) Add another school and have the Big 10 subsidize it's start-up, somehow. I can think of a lot of ways that could be done to benefit everyone in the league, whether they have hockey or not. It would be in the league's competitive and financial interest for it to do so. It would also provide an image boost.
If I am a player, I don't see the Big 10 as an attractive option for me at just 6 teams, total. Blue blood hockey programs or not. I think this is one of the reasons for the fall from grace. This is also a bad time for the league for Red to be a bazillion years old, too. My son isn't signing at a program with a coach that is just about to turn 76.
Last edited:
The Exiled One
New member
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
I disagree. The NCAA increases its exposure and reputation by putting more and more players in the NHL every year. More exposure is good for the NCAA and its member institutions. Anything that decreases the number of players the NCAA sends to the NHL is a step backwards.
JohnsonsJerseys
Michigan Tech Fan
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
I thought Michigan was a research university?
Ryan
Well, actually hundreds of them. I don't know who "Gretsky" is, but you also have Crosby, Skinner, MacKinnon, Jagr, Duchene, Nugent-Hopkins, Gagner, Stamkos, Staal, Nash, Bergeron, Ekblad, Gaborik, Nichushkin, Marleau, Lecavalier, Pastrnak, Galchenyuk, Kane, O'Reilly, Barkov, Seguin, Bogosian, Hartnell, McDavid, Thornton, Sbisa, Burns, Grigorenko, Hanifin, Matteau.... And that is only a PARTIAL list of players CURRENTLY ACTIVE in the NHL who started in the NHL at 18 (or younger in some cases). I didn't have time to type out the full list of almost 300 names of players that have done it. The list is growing every year as players develop at younger ages now than they did 20 years ago. Playing at 18 in the NHL, while of course not the norm, is by no means rare anymore.
I thought Michigan was a research university?
Ryan
blackswampboy
New member
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
Statistically no doubt, but then there's the Andrew Hammond story. The classic late bloomer.
There may not be a lot of them, but to personalize it--this change would hit guys like him.
oh, and Mike McMahon has a good piece up today:
http://blog.collegehockeynews.com/2015/11/reacting-to-the-proposed-big-ten-legislation/
Statistically no doubt, but then there's the Andrew Hammond story. The classic late bloomer.
There may not be a lot of them, but to personalize it--this change would hit guys like him.
oh, and Mike McMahon has a good piece up today:
http://blog.collegehockeynews.com/2015/11/reacting-to-the-proposed-big-ten-legislation/
Last edited:
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
Funny! College sports>college
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Funny! College sports>college
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
The average age for NHL skaters today is about 27.5. In the 80's it was about 25. (with 9 less teams) So perhaps some individuals are developing more quickly, but as a group it doesn't seem that way.
The average age for NHL skaters today is about 27.5. In the 80's it was about 25. (with 9 less teams) So perhaps some individuals are developing more quickly, but as a group it doesn't seem that way.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey
Or players are just able to sustain longer careers due to better diet and training regimens. Looking at MLB, spring training was intended to get guys back into shape after they spent the offseason working in factories, stores, etc., but that's not the case anymore. As sports medicine and training progresses, guys with career longevity like Chelios won't likely become the norm, but they won't be quite so rare either.
Or players are just able to sustain longer careers due to better diet and training regimens. Looking at MLB, spring training was intended to get guys back into shape after they spent the offseason working in factories, stores, etc., but that's not the case anymore. As sports medicine and training progresses, guys with career longevity like Chelios won't likely become the norm, but they won't be quite so rare either.