Quinnipiac signs 23 year-old transfer

[Chris '03]

Really? This is pretty intuitive scouting to me. Given a 19- or 23-year-old with roughly equivalent raw skills, a pro scout will prefer the teenager because he has more time to develop, and that's what the time horizon of a professional scout is.

Does that make him more likely to be in the pros? Or just more likely to eventually be in the pros? There aren't a lot of 19yos in pro hockey: they need time to mature and develop, which is why juniors and college are part of the farm system for the pros.

If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim. He's using hockey to finance a degree because when he graduates that's probably it for hockey. A similarly skilled 19 year old is more likely to be choosing where best to develop, with education a factor in the mix.

John Furgele transferring to Q after 2 years at UNH.  Eliligible for 2017, he will turn 26 during his senior year.

I don't think enough is being made of this typo in the original post because it is hilarious even though it makes my eyes hurt.

My argument about him no longer being a pro prospect applies even more here - he went to college at 21, spent two years on campus... then transferred to another campus. (How does he have 4 years of eligibility left, CAS?)

I assume he has two years after sitting all next year meaning he won't graduate until 2019, which would make him 26 if he's 23 now.

[Rosey]

If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

[BearLover]

If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

Quinnipiac has been almost unfairly dominant the past four seasons.

[Rosey]

If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

Quinnipiac has been almost unfairly dominant the past four seasons.

Do you think that's because of the age of their players?

[Jim Hyla]

If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

23yos would probably stay in college, meaning you wouldn't have to reload every year, as Kentucky does.

[Dafatone]

If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

Quinnipiac has been almost unfairly dominant the past four seasons.

Do you think that's because of the age of their players?

I think they're doing something right, and I would suspect that targeting players that have been undervalued by the rest of the conference/league is part of that.

This is the sort of thing that's really tricky to prove, obviously.

[Rosey]

I think they're doing something right, and I would suspect that targeting players that have been undervalued by the rest of the conference/league is part of that.

Smart recruiting, then. Still not clear that old age is the primary target here.

This is the sort of thing that's really tricky to prove, obviously.

No meddling kids (they're too old), so they're currently getting away with it.

[ugarte]

If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

Quinnipiac has been almost unfairly dominant the past four seasons.

Do you think that's because of the age of their players?

Yes, in part. Same thing with the Union team that won the title. More mature, filled out, experienced. Maybe less raw skill than the younger players but overall better, especially collectively.

Let me be clear, as I said before, I don't think this is an unfair advantage, but it may well be an advantage - or at least a good alternative strategy if you can't pull the five-star teenagers like the traditional powers.

[BearLover]

If we were talking about middling players, I'd agree that the 23yo is probably at the end of his career, but I'm talking about dominant players: that 23yo player who would be dominant in the NCAA is more likely to be in the pros by that point.

A 23 year old going the college route has been told - implicitly or explicitly - that his chances of a pro career are slim.

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level. Which leads back to my original statement that I don't think a team of 23yos would be unfairly dominant.

Quinnipiac has been almost unfairly dominant the past four seasons.

Do you think that's because of the age of their players?

Absolutely!  Older players are stronger and more experienced.  

While a 5-star 19 y/o NHL prospect might be better, it's not like college teams are filling out their rosters with those types of players anyway.  Even ND had (I believe) only 12 draft picks on their roster.  If you fill the rest of the roster with hulking 23-year-olds then you're going to dominate.  It's not an either-or type of thing: immensely skilled normal-aged college freshmen are great, and overly developed college freshmen are great too.  Unable to get much of the former, Q has focused on the latter, and become a dominant team because of it.

[RichH]

Which means he probably isn't a dominant player at the college level.

This. When this thread first started, I went and looked at the guy's stats, since I don't follow UHN at all.

3 career goals in 73 games. 1-12-13 in 37 GP this season. OK, so d-men aren't always offensive, but the -13 +/- (I know a lot of people hate +/- as a stat, but that's what I have to go on, and if you're a d-man not scoring...) isn't outstanding. He's not a huge guy and the 28 PIM suggest he isn't a physical presence or a bruiser.  The one thing on the stat sheet that does jump out is that he plays a lot. He's no Gostisbehere, but is probably a reliable body to rack up ice time.

Why is there all this hand-wringing?

[KeithK]

Absolutely!  Older players are stronger and more experienced.  

Yes, but you balance that against the presumably lower skill level.

It's definitely true that this approach can work. ut it can also lead you to a bunch of low skill players on your roster who don't play well, regardless of the fact that they have experience and physical maturity.  Having a bunch of older players definitely doesn't guarantee dominance.

[KeithK]

Why is there all this hand-wringing?

It's the typical response to someone having success by following a different strategy. There's a tendency to either copycat that strategy or complain that it's not fair.

Learning lessons from someone else's success is a smart thing to do.  Maybe older players are an under-recruited resource at the moment.  But lets not rad too much into Q's success.

[tominvb]

Just my 2 unrelated cents.

In '72 the ILR school let this 26 year old Army vet transfer in to complete my BS.  Yes I had the JC creds to qualify.
Maybe the guy feels like he is moving up in the world academically.

Insert smiley face of your choice here.

Tom in Vero

[Trotsky]

Q also just signed 14-year old Dominick Fensore, who was born 4 days before 9/11.  He is expected to join them for the 2020-21 season.

[css228]

Q also just signed 14-year old Dominick Fensore, who was born 4 days before 9/11.  He is expected to join them for the 2020-21 season.

I get signing early to go to BU, or BC, or Michigan, etc. But Q? My instinct says that commitment is not honored.