I couldn't resist with the Subject. (Hi, Age!)
Maybe everybody is off discussing it in the USCHO spank-tank*, but my procrastination site is here, and Adam's must-read story from today (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2015/11/24_big_ten_legislation_raises.php) deserves some eLF space.
Is this reminiscent of the time in the 70s when Harvard moved the ECAC to ban Canadians? (http://cdsun.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/cornell?a=d&d=CDS19721117.2.47&e=--------20--1---------)
The award for piss-and-vinegar rant of the year goes to NMU's Walt Kyle:
Quote"A lot of these schools right now, and I'm not naming names, are doing everything in their power to push the scales in their favor," Northern Michigan coach Walt Kyle said. "A lot of these guys should be embarrassed. They want NCAA (tournament) games on home campus sites. Why is that? These are the same guys who started recruiting 15-year olds, then when everyone else did, they started crying about it. When it comes to playing Northern Michigan, Lake Superior, Michigan Tech — instead of two games on their campus, two on mine, they want four games on their campus.
"All these advantages, so then they still want to hammer this other stuff down. This is the stuff that feeds college hockey, what makes college hockey great. This is why 40 programs survive."
*I honestly don't know what this means. I just wanted to give a funny name to the USCHO forum.
I did not follow how the age restriction would benefit the B1G.
Quote from: TrotskyI did not follow how the age restriction would benefit the B1G.
According to this piece:
" Big Ten programs typically recruit younger players rather than those who enter school at 21 or 22 after playing in junior leagues like the USHL."
http://www.rivetnewsradio.com/share/345820
Convincing? Dunno.
Total dick move by the B10. If their 17-year-old blue chippers can't compete, maybe they should adjust their recruiting strategies?
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: TrotskyI did not follow how the age restriction would benefit the B1G.
According to this piece:
" Big Ten programs typically recruit younger players rather than those who enter school at 21 or 22 after playing in junior leagues like the USHL."
http://www.rivetnewsradio.com/share/345820
Convincing? Dunno.
The big name programs have an advantage in recruiting blue chippers, who usually commit younger if they're gioing to go the college route. Smaller schools compete by finding older players who may have a lower pure talent level (and are less likely to go on to NHL careers) but have the advantages of size/strength and maturity. Limit the ability of schools to recruit these players and you make it harder to compete with the name programs.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: TrotskyI did not follow how the age restriction would benefit the B1G.
According to this piece:
" Big Ten programs typically recruit younger players rather than those who enter school at 21 or 22 after playing in junior leagues like the USHL."
http://www.rivetnewsradio.com/share/345820
Convincing? Dunno.
The big name programs have an advantage in recruiting blue chippers, who usually commit younger if they're gioing to go the college route. Smaller schools compete by finding older players who may have a lower pure talent level (and are less likely to go on to NHL careers) but have the advantages of size/strength and maturity. Limit the ability of schools to recruit these players and you make it harder to compete with the name programs.
Got it. Thanks.
More on this from CHN. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/section/age_limit)
I have to admit that I'm divided on this. Minny's Don Lucia makes a point when he relates that some coaches tell a student to stay in juniors a year more, when maybe the "kid" wants to come to college now. He could, but no scholarship.
Then again the way the Big Ten went about proposing this was sh*"ty. They probably thought it had no chance of being approved if it first went through the hockey community and maybe then to the NCAA. The end around really bothers me.
I don't know if when a recruit commits, he is given a definite year to start school? Over the years, I've certainly heard of players being brought in a year earlier, because the school needed them. I can only suspect there are many that are told to stay longer in juniors, even though they want to come now.
Jim, I think there's a target date but it is not in any way a commitment. My oldest son is 16 ('99 birth year) and plays Midget AAA hockey on a very good team. Some of his teammates have started to commit to colleges. One committed to Penn State and is expected to join the team in 2018-2019. He's also a '99 birth year, if he went right after graduating high school he'd be a natural freshman during the 2017-2018 season. My read is Penn State is saying that he needs a MINIMUM of one year in the juniors (he's a USHL draft pick). I've seen another '99 birth year player commit to Penn State and he's targeted to play for Penn State in 2017-2018 when he's a natural freshman. He is bigger, faster and more finished player in the eyes of most.
I think colleges push out kids when they need to. My son's coach always tells the cautionary tale of a 1994 defenseman who was the first among his peers to commit to a college (Vermont). He did not develop as expected so the kept pushing out his target year of arrival. He has never played for Vermont, though I think he had scholarship money.
Quote from: RatushnyFanJim, I think there's a target date but it is not in any way a commitment. My oldest son is 16 ('99 birth year) and plays Midget AAA hockey on a very good team. Some of his teammates have started to commit to colleges. One committed to Penn State and is expected to join the team in 2018-2019. He's also a '99 birth year, if he went right after graduating high school he'd be a natural freshman during the 2017-2018 season. My read is Penn State is saying that he needs a MINIMUM of one year in the juniors (he's a USHL draft pick). I've seen another '99 birth year player commit to Penn State and he's targeted to play for Penn State in 2017-2018 when he's a natural freshman. He is bigger, faster and more finished player in the eyes of most.
I think colleges push out kids when they need to. My son's coach always tells the cautionary tale of a 1994 defenseman who was the first among his peers to commit to a college (Vermont). He did not develop as expected so the kept pushing out his target year of arrival. He has never played for Vermont, though I think he had scholarship money.
One could argue that the coach is doing a kid a favor if the kid is smaller, slower, and less finished now but, with a year or two in juniors, is likely to become bigger, faster, and more skilled.
The men in my family have "late puberty" and don't reach their adult height until they're 18 or more. Before going to college, one of my sons went through school the smallest in his class, often dwarfed in comparison to kids two or more grades behind him. After examining him, an endocrinologist predicted my son would be 5'5" at most, but today he's just under 6 feet.
So giving a kid a couple of years for his body to catch up to the norm for his age may be the difference between four years of riding the pine and wearing a letter in his senior year.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: RatushnyFanJim, I think there's a target date but it is not in any way a commitment. My oldest son is 16 ('99 birth year) and plays Midget AAA hockey on a very good team. Some of his teammates have started to commit to colleges. One committed to Penn State and is expected to join the team in 2018-2019. He's also a '99 birth year, if he went right after graduating high school he'd be a natural freshman during the 2017-2018 season. My read is Penn State is saying that he needs a MINIMUM of one year in the juniors (he's a USHL draft pick). I've seen another '99 birth year player commit to Penn State and he's targeted to play for Penn State in 2017-2018 when he's a natural freshman. He is bigger, faster and more finished player in the eyes of most.
I think colleges push out kids when they need to. My son's coach always tells the cautionary tale of a 1994 defenseman who was the first among his peers to commit to a college (Vermont). He did not develop as expected so the kept pushing out his target year of arrival. He has never played for Vermont, though I think he had scholarship money.
One could argue that the coach is doing a kid a favor if the kid is smaller, slower, and less finished now but, with a year or two in juniors, is likely to become bigger, faster, and more skilled.
The men in my family have "late puberty" and don't reach their adult height until they're 18 or more. Before going to college, one of my sons went through school the smallest in his class, often dwarfed in comparison to kids two or more grades behind him. After examining him, an endocrinologist predicted my son would be 5'5" at most, but today he's just under 6 feet.
So giving a kid a couple of years for his body to catch up to the norm for his age may be the difference between four years of riding the pine and wearing a letter in his senior year.
That's true, but it can also be that the coach says we don't have a need for you now and just sit in juniors for another year. Which is more common I don't know, but I'm sure that some coaches abuse the system and therfore abuse the kid. Somehow I'd like to see that a firm date is given. It could contain some sort of change if both parties agree. I just suspect the coaches abuse the system more than the kids do. That's from the seat of my pants, no data.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: SwampyQuote from: RatushnyFanJim, I think there's a target date but it is not in any way a commitment. My oldest son is 16 ('99 birth year) and plays Midget AAA hockey on a very good team. Some of his teammates have started to commit to colleges. One committed to Penn State and is expected to join the team in 2018-2019. He's also a '99 birth year, if he went right after graduating high school he'd be a natural freshman during the 2017-2018 season. My read is Penn State is saying that he needs a MINIMUM of one year in the juniors (he's a USHL draft pick). I've seen another '99 birth year player commit to Penn State and he's targeted to play for Penn State in 2017-2018 when he's a natural freshman. He is bigger, faster and more finished player in the eyes of most.
I think colleges push out kids when they need to. My son's coach always tells the cautionary tale of a 1994 defenseman who was the first among his peers to commit to a college (Vermont). He did not develop as expected so the kept pushing out his target year of arrival. He has never played for Vermont, though I think he had scholarship money.
One could argue that the coach is doing a kid a favor if the kid is smaller, slower, and less finished now but, with a year or two in juniors, is likely to become bigger, faster, and more skilled.
The men in my family have "late puberty" and don't reach their adult height until they're 18 or more. Before going to college, one of my sons went through school the smallest in his class, often dwarfed in comparison to kids two or more grades behind him. After examining him, an endocrinologist predicted my son would be 5'5" at most, but today he's just under 6 feet.
So giving a kid a couple of years for his body to catch up to the norm for his age may be the difference between four years of riding the pine and wearing a letter in his senior year.
That's true, but it can also be that the coach says we don't have a need for you now and just sit in juniors for another year. Which is more common I don't know, but I'm sure that some coaches abuse the system and therfore abuse the kid. Somehow I'd like to see that a firm date is given. It could contain some sort of change if both parties agree. I just suspect the coaches abuse the system more than the kids do. That's from the seat of my pants, no data.
I don't think we should kid ourselves, College Hockey is a "semi pro" system where at least some of the participants have aspirations of a pro career and there is a fair amount of money on the line for the institutions. These programs are being run for the benefit of the institution, not the student/players.
Finally, USCHO comes out with an article on the subject. (http://www.uscho.com/2016/01/19/in-ushl-big-ten-age-proposal-finds-some-understanding-much-concern/)
The latest on this. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/24_age_limit_proposal_gets_one.php)
Quote from: AdamThe NCAA's Legislative Committee, which is comprised of 19 representatives from various conferences, voted last month against recommending that the legislation be passed.
That decision is not binding. The legislation still goes to the larger NCAA Legislative Council, a 40-member group with its own set of representatives, the vote of which is binding. That vote is coming up during their next meeting, April 6-7 in Indianapolis, right as the Frozen Four is convening in Tampa.
Some sanity prevails, no vote this year. It will probably come up again, but not in the under-the-radar method the B1G schools tried to bulldoze it through. That's all I really want: some honest discussion and inclusion of all affected schools and programs.
Big Ten Withdraws Age Limit Proposal (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/04/06_big_ten_withdraws_age_limit.php)