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.
The B1G's proposal and their defense of it
- Thread starter manurespreader
- Start date
gfmorris
New member
Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it
I think that the only realistic answer is "they didn't have the votes to get it passed". Wanting "more discussion" means that they want to change hearts and minds, and ... well, I expect that's a tough sell.
GFM
I think that the only realistic answer is "they didn't have the votes to get it passed". Wanting "more discussion" means that they want to change hearts and minds, and ... well, I expect that's a tough sell.
GFM
JohnsonsJerseys
Michigan Tech Fan
Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it
I can't wait until the press release comes out proudly stating that the Bi6(7) pulled the proposal because they felt doing so was in the best interest of college and really that is what the Bi6(7) are all about...
They might be the Bi6(7) but I guess they were not big enough to stand up and watch their proposal get shot down. That's the chicken way out, but whatever, at least it is dead (for now).
Ryan J
I can't wait until the press release comes out proudly stating that the Bi6(7) pulled the proposal because they felt doing so was in the best interest of college and really that is what the Bi6(7) are all about...
They might be the Bi6(7) but I guess they were not big enough to stand up and watch their proposal get shot down. That's the chicken way out, but whatever, at least it is dead (for now).
Ryan J
Biddco
Follow me on Twitter: @Biddco
Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it
Most likely. They burned bridges the way they went about it compared to if they had done it through every coach.
Most likely. They burned bridges the way they went about it compared to if they had done it through every coach.
UML Puck Hawk
New member
Been trying to rework the acronym, this works. Thanks.
Almington
Blood Boiling with Rage and Hate
If the latest baseless rumor somehow miracles into truth...the age thing won't matter.
The only reason that something like that would happen is if it was the ONLY way to get UND into the conference.
At which point, I'd expect Some NCHC and WCHA realignment to happen in short order. Who moves first will be interesting because that will dictate who ends up with the AK schools.
manurespreader
Still upright
Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it
That's just an April fools joke. This proposal is not dead yet, just you wait.If the latest baseless rumor somehow miracles into truth...the age thing won't matter.
Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it
It was indeed a joke. Wanted to see how many fish I could catch.
For those not in the know: some *ahem* "journalist" overhead a certain unnamed school (his words) was going to sue the B1G and try and break up the conference.
It was indeed a joke. Wanted to see how many fish I could catch.
For those not in the know: some *ahem* "journalist" overhead a certain unnamed school (his words) was going to sue the B1G and try and break up the conference.
aparch
Well-known member
Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it
Boy that's what I get for passing along some banter I saw from Chris Dilks and Matt Wellens.
I figured it was baseless though.
Boy that's what I get for passing along some banter I saw from Chris Dilks and Matt Wellens.
I figured it was baseless though.
John J. MacInnes
Coach Emeritus
Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it
Looks like the B1G coaches were not all united in pushing for the age restrictions after all. The quote from former MSU coach Ron Mason was pretty revealing.
“Maybe instead of going for the top-shelf kid, go after the 20-year-old freshmen who will be playing until they become 23- or 24-year-old seniors because it seems like teams that get these kids aren’t losing them,” Mason said.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sp...igans-berenson-faces-rebuilding-job/83850614/
Looks like the B1G coaches were not all united in pushing for the age restrictions after all. The quote from former MSU coach Ron Mason was pretty revealing.
“Maybe instead of going for the top-shelf kid, go after the 20-year-old freshmen who will be playing until they become 23- or 24-year-old seniors because it seems like teams that get these kids aren’t losing them,” Mason said.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sp...igans-berenson-faces-rebuilding-job/83850614/
Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it
IMO the real problem is stockpiling recruits.
What do you do about schools that have 15+ commitments?
What about schools that keep deferring their commitments from enrolling?
Is it possible to regulate that you can't commit until the summer before your junior year?
IMO the real problem is stockpiling recruits.
What do you do about schools that have 15+ commitments?
What about schools that keep deferring their commitments from enrolling?
Is it possible to regulate that you can't commit until the summer before your junior year?
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it
Why do you think stockpiling is an issue?
How long is too long?
53% of all players on 2015-16 rosters were committed a year or less,
80% are committed 2 years or less,
94% 3 years or less...
While I agree that things suck for the other ~6% but the majority of those players come in at 18 or 19 yos so those are really examples of extremely early commitments.
Why do you think stockpiling is an issue?
How long is too long?
53% of all players on 2015-16 rosters were committed a year or less,
80% are committed 2 years or less,
94% 3 years or less...
While I agree that things suck for the other ~6% but the majority of those players come in at 18 or 19 yos so those are really examples of extremely early commitments.
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it
I don't know if those numbers tell all the story as they represent a % of the whole. For example what if 40 teams rarely or never commit more players than they have room for and the other 20 do it a lot? The 20 team's numbers could be smoothed out quite a bit there, if you follow me.
I had a twitter exchange with Mike McMahon at the end of February where I noted that Heisenberg showed six (not even Ivy) schools with a combined 75 incoming '16 freshman and a total of 24 graduating seniors among them. So 12.5 guys for 4 guaranteed spots/team. Some departures of course, but obviously an awful lot of those guys are getting deferred.
I don't know if those numbers tell all the story as they represent a % of the whole. For example what if 40 teams rarely or never commit more players than they have room for and the other 20 do it a lot? The 20 team's numbers could be smoothed out quite a bit there, if you follow me.
I had a twitter exchange with Mike McMahon at the end of February where I noted that Heisenberg showed six (not even Ivy) schools with a combined 75 incoming '16 freshman and a total of 24 graduating seniors among them. So 12.5 guys for 4 guaranteed spots/team. Some departures of course, but obviously an awful lot of those guys are getting deferred.
Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it
Doesn't take long, at that rate, to burn through 15+ commitments.
At North Dakota we brought in 11 freshman to this year's roster. Thus far, between senior and early departures, the team will have to replace eight players before the start of play this fall, and there is still a chance for more early departures.
Doesn't take long, at that rate, to burn through 15+ commitments.
I guess to me what you're doing is drawing a distinction without a difference. Are we supposed to make a rule for 57 other teams because of what 4 do?
The interesting thing about all of this is that if deferrals and over-recruitimg are the actual issue, this disn't really do anything to solve it. If you want to stop deferrals and "forcing" kids to defer until they are older, then make a rule that addresses it. If the issue is over-recruiting, then make a rule limiting the number of kids that you can commit (I know that can get Complicated due to not knowing how many kids leave, but that can be figured out).
All this did was hurt mainly innocent kids that had nothing to do with over-recruiting or deferrals. This just led to conspiracy theories and now plenty of distrust among the coaches and conferences. Nothing good came this proposal or the way that it was initiated. No one trusts the big ten and it's member schools and a lot of ill will was created.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it
But Heisenberg isn't always accurate on when players will come in. There is a huge difference between being deferred and knowing you were never coming in for a given year.