Opponent and other news and results of interest 2024-2025

[stereax]

Speaking of BU, Jack Parker gets inducted into the Hockey HOF. Well deserved.

Kudos to him.

[chimpfood]

Mike McMahon reports that NHL draft rights will expire at 22 for all players now.

https://x.com/MikeMcMahonCHN/status/1937997535873777879?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I'm curious how this will affect us and our tendency to bring in older players.

[stereax]

Mike McMahon reports that NHL draft rights will expire at 22 for all players now.

https://x.com/MikeMcMahonCHN/status/1937997535873777879?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I'm curious how this will affect us and our tendency to bring in older players.

Draft rights. I don't think this hits us as hard as some other schools, given we don't have high level drafted players that often, but there's obviously going to be pressure as players turn 22 to sign if they are drafted...

[BearLover]

Mike McMahon reports that NHL draft rights will expire at 22 for all players now.

https://x.com/MikeMcMahonCHN/status/1937997535873777879?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I'm curious how this will affect us and our tendency to bring in older players.

What a stupid rule, and clearly worse than the old one, which was (correct me if I'm wrong) that NHL teams hold a drafted player's rights for four years *from their freshman year of college.* Now, if you're drafted at 18 like most players, you basically can't play juniors or else you lose a year of college. If you're 19 or 20, you can't play 4 years of college at all if you sign with the team that drafted you.

This change won't affect the truly elite players who were leaving college within a year or two anyway. It will instead impact the good drafted players who typically would sign pro their junior or senior year.

This change might create perverse incentives. For example, drafted players should skip/leave junior hockey and go straight to college no matter how ready they are (which in turn severely weakens the USHL and other junior leagues). And drafted overagers are not as worth recruiting because (if they're good enough for the NHL) they will only stay 2 or 3 years. And from a fan perspective, it leaves us rooting *against* our recruits being taken in the NHL draft.

[upprdeck]

So kids are drafted hoping they will be good.. If they do play well the team has to sign them or they go back into the pool?  How is that a bad thing?  if you are  marginal player that gets drafted teams are either not signing you or lowering the offer.. If the team matters to you then thats an issue but again thats just luck anyway.

[marty]

So kids are drafted hoping they will be good.. If they do play well the team has to sign them or they go back into the pool?  How is that a bad thing?

I might not understand what you mean but the problem is that once you are 22 the NHL team will try to sign you - if they want you - and this is without worries as to whether you will graduate. I would think it's a bad thing if the rules push the NHL teams to sign the players before they graduate.

But would some of the younger players be less likely to have pressure to sign.  If one doesn't turn 22 until senior year then wouldn't the new rule be less likely to cause the player to leave early? Granted this is a subset of the whole universe of potential draftees.

[fastforward]

I wonder how many of our draft picks will turn 22 this season and if we risk losing any before the season starts

[adamw]

one thing that might happen, is NHL teams will be less likely to take NCAA-bound players in the later rounds.

[chimpfood]

one thing that might happen, is NHL teams will be less likely to take NCAA-bound players in the later rounds.

Absolutely, was just thinking that this hurts the chances of DiGiulian and Cournoyer getting drafted (but I guess helps us). Does anyone know if players drafted under the old rules are going to be immediately subject to the new ones or will there be grandfathering in? This is relevant for some of our draftees like Fegaras, Devlin, Walsh and Fisher who are already 21 with multiple years of
NCAA eligibility remaining.

[BearLover]

one thing that might happen, is NHL teams will be less likely to take NCAA-bound players in the later rounds.

Absolutely, was just thinking that this hurts the chances of DiGiulian and Cournoyer getting drafted (but I guess helps us). Does anyone know if players drafted under the old rules are going to be immediately subject to the new ones or will there be grandfathering in? This is relevant for some of our draftees like Fegaras, Devlin, Walsh and Fisher who are already 21 with multiple years of
NCAA eligibility remaining.

Seems like it would be a complete disaster for existing players to be grandfathered in. Imagine a 23-y/o draft pick whose rights are suddenly expired.

[abmarks]

one thing that might happen, is NHL teams will be less likely to take NCAA-bound players in the later rounds.

Absolutely, was just thinking that this hurts the chances of DiGiulian and Cournoyer getting drafted (but I guess helps us). Does anyone know if players drafted under the old rules are going to be immediately subject to the new ones or will there be grandfathering in? This is relevant for some of our draftees like Fegaras, Devlin, Walsh and Fisher who are already 21 with multiple years of
NCAA eligibility remaining.

Seems like it would be a complete disaster for existing players to be grandfathered in. Imagine a 23-y/o draft pick whose rights are suddenly expired.

I must be missing something.  What's the downside to free agency vs. being locked to the team that drafted you?   If you get drafted by Carolina (to pick a team at random), their exclusivity expires and you become a free agent,  how's that hurt you?

If Carolina really really wants to not lose you, they might well be motivated to overpay you to sign before you are a free agent, I'll grant that point. But nothing prevents Carolina from signing you a year later and if you're any good at that point a year later you may well have multiple teams interested and will then actually have a choice in what the best fit is, plus the competitive bidding that might be involved.

The only guys I see it hurting would be players who were drafted but as the rights near expiration they have underperformed significantly versus expectation. It seems plausible that some of those underperformers would make a little more money short-term because a team didn't want to have completely wasted draft pick then at player might receive trying to hook up as a free agent given that they had underperformed.

Someone please fill in the banks for me...

[upprdeck]

Pretty much the marginal players have to bank on themselves.  They wait and play in college and hope to get better and improve a contract.  If you get to the end and you have not done so, then you are more desperate to sign or else give up the dream.  If you play well signing makes no sense with no control of where you might go.

[BearLover]

one thing that might happen, is NHL teams will be less likely to take NCAA-bound players in the later rounds.

Absolutely, was just thinking that this hurts the chances of DiGiulian and Cournoyer getting drafted (but I guess helps us). Does anyone know if players drafted under the old rules are going to be immediately subject to the new ones or will there be grandfathering in? This is relevant for some of our draftees like Fegaras, Devlin, Walsh and Fisher who are already 21 with multiple years of
NCAA eligibility remaining.

Seems like it would be a complete disaster for existing players to be grandfathered in. Imagine a 23-y/o draft pick whose rights are suddenly expired.

I must be missing something.  What's the downside to free agency vs. being locked to the team that drafted you?   If you get drafted by Carolina (to pick a team at random), their exclusivity expires and you become a free agent,  how's that hurt you?

If Carolina really really wants to not lose you, they might well be motivated to overpay you to sign before you are a free agent, I'll grant that point. But nothing prevents Carolina from signing you a year later and if you're any good at that point a year later you may well have multiple teams interested and will then actually have a choice in what the best fit is, plus the competitive bidding that might be involved.

The only guys I see it hurting would be players who were drafted but as the rights near expiration they have underperformed significantly versus expectation. It seems plausible that some of those underperformers would make a little more money short-term because a team didn't want to have completely wasted draft pick then at player might receive trying to hook up as a free agent given that they had underperformed.

Someone please fill in the banks for me...

It's pretty clearly a complete disaster for the teams that drafted the players? For the teams that traded for those player?

[adamw]

FYI Frank Seravalli - who most likely has the CBA deal sitting in front of him - is saying something different about draft rights (that basically nothing will change). I spent a bunch of time at the draft trying to get more specifics, but couldn't - so - stay tuned.

[Trotsky]

I don't see a good argument against this rule so far.  The idea of the timeout is NHL teams can't throttle players' careers by holding their rights indefinitely.  If the player develops sufficiently he should move up and into the pro system.  If they can't come to terms, the player becomes a UFA and can shop himself to the whole league.

The rules are there to protect the drafting team but also prevent them from stockpiling.  Seems like a good balance to me.

For the NC$$, unless I am misinterpreting, it introduces greater risk for Q'ing players by delaying their freshman season until their first prostate exam.  Younger players are safer from being coaxed away to the pros.

Or am I missing something?