NCAA Age Restriction Proposal

The Exiled One · Post by **The Exiled One** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:41 am

Any of you who follow college hockey closely will know about this proposed NCAA rule already, but if you don't, I encourage you to do some research. Here's just the latest article...

http://blog.collegehockeynews.com/2015/ ... will-pass/

I post this in the HS thread because you should be made aware that this will have a profoundly negative impact on MSHSL hockey as it will further incentivize players to leave early for junior hockey.

So, when you see record numbers of early departures in the next few years, note that this legislation sponsored by Don Lucia and the B1G is a primary driver of the problem. Only 11 of 60 NCAA teams favor this new rule, but the B1G has the political upper hand and is forcing the change.

Sats81 · Post by **Sats81** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:42 am

It won't happen. #LuciaIsAClown

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:44 am

It seems to be in violation of the US Constitution.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:52 am

There's a long thread on this in the USCHO Forum (Men's Division 1).

The Exiled One · Post by **The Exiled One** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:54 am

Sats81 wrote:It won't happen. #LuciaIsAClown

Mike McMahon is following the issue more closely than anyone. I'm certainly hoping it won't pass, but I'll defer to McMahon when it comes to making a prediction.

Sats81 · Post by **Sats81** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:57 am

The Exiled One wrote:
Sats81 wrote:It won't happen. #LuciaIsAClown
Mike McMahon is following the issue more closely than anyone. I'm certainly hoping it won't pass, but I'll defer to McMahon when it comes to making a prediction.

Well my prediction is it won't pass. I don't trust ink stained wretches anyway.

northwoods oldtimer · Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:02 pm

Sats81 wrote:It won't happen. #LuciaIsAClown

Agree

Gopher Blog · Post by **Gopher Blog** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:20 pm

Sorry TEO but the nature of your remarks are (at best) a stretch with regard to the impact on HS hockey.

The types of elite guys in MN HS hockey that currently leave (or be at greater risk for leaving) are not the same guys that tend to enter into college after 20 years old... nor will this potential rule change eliminate 20+ year old recruits from being a part of college hockey. Just takes a year off of their eligibility. College coaches will still take 3 years of a player they think can make an impact. Heck, quality players that transfer that have 2 years or less eligibility left still get plenty of interest from college coaches.

The over 20 year olds that this would impact have rarely been the types that left HS hockey early in the first place. The guys this would impact are usually the very late bloomer types that wouldn't be anywhere close to ready for juniors before HS ends or guys that are borderline players that need a lot of extra time to even be worthy of D1. These aren't the types that are going to be getting pressured/wooed by junior hockey at 17.

At best, this will simply force some college coaches to quit sitting on recruits til after 20 years old and push them to bring them in sooner. Let's also remember that this helps players that DON'T want to delay their education as long as some college fan boys want... which is often a forgotten facet in this topic.

As for whether it will pass, I am not sure the people here saying it won't pass really seem to understand who even votes on it. I'd say it is far more likely to pass than not given the influence of those behind it and the fact a lot of the voters are likely going to care less given they have no horse in the race... their attitude will probably be, "Hey, if those 11 all-D1 schools want it to pass, why should I care? Doesn't affect our institution."

PS - I'm not even convinced Lucia will be a head coach when this potentially goes into affect.

Sats81 · Post by **Sats81** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:24 pm

Gopher Blog wrote:Sorry TEO but the nature of your remarks are (at best) a stretch with regard to the impact on HS hockey.

The types of elite guys in MN HS hockey that currently leave (or be at greater risk for leaving) are not the same guys that tend to enter into college after 20 years old... nor will this potential rule change eliminate 20+ year old recruits from being a part of college hockey. Just takes a year off of their eligibility. College coaches will still take 3 years of a player they think can make an impact. Heck, quality players that transfer that have 2 years or less eligibility left still get plenty of interest from college coaches.

The over 20 year olds that this would impact have rarely been the types that left HS hockey early in the first place. The guys this would impact are usually the very late bloomer types that wouldn't be anywhere close to ready for juniors before HS ends or guys that are borderline players that need a lot of extra time to even be worthy of D1. These aren't the types that are going to be getting pressured/wooed by junior hockey at 17.

As for whether it will pass, I am not sure the people here saying it won't pass really seem to understand who even votes on it. I'd say it is far more likely to pass than not given the influence of those behind it and the fact a lot of the voters are likely going to care less given they have no horse in the race... their attitude will probably be, "Hey, if those 11 all-D1 schools want it to pass, why should I care? Doesn't affect our institution."

PS - I'm not even convinced Lucia will be a head coach when this potentially goes into affect.

Todd Richards?

Gopher Blog · Post by **Gopher Blog** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:35 pm

McMahon's solutions are also unrealistic. First of all, the LOI system with "signing periods" is not just for college hockey. It is for multiple sports. They aren't going to rearrange an entire system of doing things for multiple sports simply because of this one situation. That is fantasy.

I think the younger recruiting is something everybody wishes could change. Even the coaches that do it. But it is the nature of the beast and it was exacerbated over the years by a system that rewarded coaches for getting a young kid to verbal because then the dumb "gentleman's agreement" would kick in and everybody else is supposed to back off. Even Lucia has often stated he wished it could go back to the way it was 20+ years ago when pretty much all kids waited until they were seniors to pick a school.

warriors41 · Post by **warriors41** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:56 pm

If you can't beat 'em, change the rules and cite it as a safety issue.

Sparlimb · Post by **Sparlimb** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:06 pm

warriors41 wrote:If you can't beat 'em, change the rules and cite it as a safety issue.

This has been a problem in college hockey for 40 years. Many of you are too young to remember, but there was a time Denver and the Gophers often shared the WCHA title but didn't play each other because of fighting about age of players. To think an 18 year old college kid should be getting pounded in the boards be a 25 year old man is absurd. It's a good rule that will help college hockey be where it should be.

The Exiled One · Post by **The Exiled One** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:09 pm

Gopher Blog wrote:Sorry TEO but the nature of your remarks are (at best) a stretch with regard to the impact on HS hockey.

The types of elite guys in MN HS hockey that currently leave (or be at greater risk for leaving) are not the same guys that tend to enter into college after 20 years old... nor will this potential rule change eliminate 20+ year old recruits from being a part of college hockey. Just takes a year off of their eligibility. College coaches will still take 3 years of a player they think can make an impact. Heck, quality players that transfer that have 2 years or less eligibility left still get plenty of interest from college coaches.

The over 20 year olds that this would impact have rarely been the types that left HS hockey early in the first place. The guys this would impact are usually the very late bloomer types that wouldn't be anywhere close to ready for juniors before HS ends or guys that are borderline players that need a lot of extra time to even be worthy of D1. These aren't the types that are going to be getting pressured/wooed by junior hockey at 17.

I'm fairly sure you hold the minority opinion on this issue. My opinion remains that HS students, both committed and uncommitted, are going to feel additional pressure to get into juniors before graduation. They'll feel this pressure from the junior teams that hold their rights and the college teams that they've committed to.

If I had to make a prediction, I believe it will increase the MSHSL early departure rate by 30% or more. You're welcome to disagree for the reasons you've stated, but I don't buy what you're selling.

The Exiled One · Post by **The Exiled One** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:12 pm

Sparlimb wrote:To think an 18 year old college kid should be getting pounded in the boards be a 25 year old man is absurd.

Doesn't seem to be affecting McDavid or Eichel. The size differential is a red herring. If it was a real issue, you'd be better off adding a minimum size, not a minimum age.

warriors41 · Post by **warriors41** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:28 pm

Sparlimb wrote:
warriors41 wrote:If you can't beat 'em, change the rules and cite it as a safety issue.
This has been a problem in college hockey for 40 years. Many of you are too young to remember, but there was a time Denver and the Gophers often shared the WCHA title but didn't play each other because of fighting about age of players. To think an 18 year old college kid should be getting pounded in the boards be a 25 year old man is absurd. It's a good rule that will help college hockey be where it should be.

Is there a big dofference between 24 and 25? Lets just set the age at 18 then. Its a good rule of you're a B10 team who can't compete with schools from other conferences. Bottom line is if the B10 had a better record against these schools they wouldn't be pushing for the change. If you cheer for a small school like Union or Merrimack who has to get these older recruits to be competitive its a slap in the face. If you're an 18 year old kid who has offers from the Gophers and Beavers its an easy choice who to pick. If Don does miss a kid like Matt Read or Brad Hunt, no big deal because now they age out a year quicker and he still wins. You have to be blind to see this as anything other than big school with big name cache trying to slant the ice even more in their favor.

The Exiled One · Post by **The Exiled One** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:30 pm

warriors41 wrote:You have to be blind to see this as anything other than big school with big name cache trying to slant the ice even more in their favor.

...or suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:39 pm

warriors41 wrote:Its a good rule of you're a B10 team who can't compete with schools from other conferences....You have to be blind to see this as anything other than big school with big name cache trying to slant the ice even more in their favor.

On the one hand you say the B1G schools "can't compete" but then you go on to say they're "trying to slant the ice even more in their favor."

It's ridiculous that 25 year-olds are still playing college hockey in the first place. In what other sports do you see this? A one year age reduction is just a step in the right direction, IMO.

northwoods oldtimer · Post by **northwoods oldtimer** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:45 pm

MNHockeyFan wrote:
warriors41 wrote:Its a good rule of you're a B10 team who can't compete with schools from other conferences....You have to be blind to see this as anything other than big school with big name cache trying to slant the ice even more in their favor.
On the one hand you say the B1G schools "can't compete" but then you go on to say they're "trying to slant the ice even more in their favor."

It's ridiculous that 25 year-olds are still playing college hockey in the first place. In what other sports do you see this? A one year age reduction is just a step in the right direction, IMO.

No it isn't when the same college coaches have a junior system of development which to a large degree benefits those same college coaches when it comes to staying employed. Other sports don't have that luxury. bunch of hypocrites if you ask me.

The Exiled One · Post by **The Exiled One** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm

MNHockeyFan wrote:It's ridiculous that 25 year-olds are still playing college hockey in the first place. In what other sports do you see this?

In what sports do you see a graduation rate of 92.1%? This rule would affect graduation rates directly, as more players would enter school with only three years of eligibility. Many of them will leave school to pursue professional opportunities when their eligibility is used up.

warriors41 · Post by **warriors41** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:56 pm

MNHockeyFan wrote:
warriors41 wrote:Its a good rule of you're a B10 team who can't compete with schools from other conferences....You have to be blind to see this as anything other than big school with big name cache trying to slant the ice even more in their favor.
On the one hand you say the B1G schools "can't compete" but then you go on to say they're "trying to slant the ice even more in their favor."

It's ridiculous that 25 year-olds are still playing college hockey in the first place. In what other sports do you see this? A one year age reduction is just a step in the right direction, IMO.

Those schools have one advantage that they are playing to their benefit, and they're playing it well. Name recognition, facilities, education, record of developing talent, etc all still go to the big schools. Smaller programs have one card they can play, which by the way isn't exclusive. Nothing besides pride and arrogance is stopping Don Lucia from recruiting older kids. He just thinks the Gophers are too good to do it, but gets proven wrong in the playoffs. I'm not going to support a plan that would take the one thing small schools can do to compete with big schools.

I'll say it again; if its a safety issue, set the age at 18 and make sure all players are within 4 years of each other.

stromboli · Post by **stromboli** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 3:15 pm

northwoods oldtimer wrote:
MNHockeyFan wrote:
warriors41 wrote:Its a good rule of you're a B10 team who can't compete with schools from other conferences....You have to be blind to see this as anything other than big school with big name cache trying to slant the ice even more in their favor.
On the one hand you say the B1G schools "can't compete" but then you go on to say they're "trying to slant the ice even more in their favor."

It's ridiculous that 25 year-olds are still playing college hockey in the first place. In what other sports do you see this? A one year age reduction is just a step in the right direction, IMO.
No it isn't when the same college coaches have a junior system of development which to a large degree benefits those same college coaches when it comes to staying employed. Other sports don't have that luxury. bunch of hypocrites if you ask me.

This.

mulefarm · Post by **mulefarm** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 3:41 pm

Gopher Blog wrote:McMahon's solutions are also unrealistic. First of all, the LOI system with "signing periods" is not just for college hockey. It is for multiple sports. They aren't going to rearrange an entire system of doing things for multiple sports simply because of this one situation. That is fantasy.

I think the younger recruiting is something everybody wishes could change. Even the coaches that do it. But it is the nature of the beast and it was exacerbated over the years by a system that rewarded coaches for getting a young kid to verbal because then the dumb "gentleman's agreement" would kick in and everybody else is supposed to back off. Even Lucia has often stated he wished it could go back to the way it was 20+ years ago when pretty much all kids waited until they were seniors to pick a school.

Is this rule just for Hockey? How about football in Texas(or south) where kids are held back consistently for football and don't graduate until 19 and even 20 from HS. Then get red shirted in college and by the time they are seniors they are 24-25. Hockey is unique as far having the Jr programs. The only reason this happens is the Jr programs are a business and make money. If other sports could figure out how to make money off of the 18-20 yr olds, there would be more 20 yr olds entering college. Absolutely nothing wrong with the way hockey is operating! If Lucia really believes things should go back to the way it was 20 yrs ago, why not promote that?

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:34 pm

When you're 25 years old it's past time to move on and get your life underway. You should no longer be an undergrad in college going to school with 18 year olds. If you're still living the dream of making it in the NHL you should be living it in the minor leagues, which would be better preparation for the NHL anyway. Graduate from high school at 18, play two years of juniors if necessary, go to college for four years, and then turn pro if that's what you want to do. Same rules apply to every kid, every school.

Gopher Blog · Post by **Gopher Blog** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:50 pm

The Exiled One wrote:
Gopher Blog wrote:Sorry TEO but the nature of your remarks are (at best) a stretch with regard to the impact on HS hockey.

The types of elite guys in MN HS hockey that currently leave (or be at greater risk for leaving) are not the same guys that tend to enter into college after 20 years old... nor will this potential rule change eliminate 20+ year old recruits from being a part of college hockey. Just takes a year off of their eligibility. College coaches will still take 3 years of a player they think can make an impact. Heck, quality players that transfer that have 2 years or less eligibility left still get plenty of interest from college coaches.

The over 20 year olds that this would impact have rarely been the types that left HS hockey early in the first place. The guys this would impact are usually the very late bloomer types that wouldn't be anywhere close to ready for juniors before HS ends or guys that are borderline players that need a lot of extra time to even be worthy of D1. These aren't the types that are going to be getting pressured/wooed by junior hockey at 17.
I'm fairly sure you hold the minority opinion on this issue. My opinion remains that HS students, both committed and uncommitted, are going to feel additional pressure to get into juniors before graduation. They'll feel this pressure from the junior teams that hold their rights and the college teams that they've committed to.

If I had to make a prediction, I believe it will increase the MSHSL early departure rate by 30% or more. You're welcome to disagree for the reasons you've stated, but I don't buy what you're selling.

You are free to predict whenever you wish. However, we both know you have absolutely no evidence that it will lead to anything. It is simply conjecture... which is why your "sky is falling" tone is laughable.

I pointed out the types of players that are most affected by this rule change (which any college follower knows are fair/accurate descriptions). These are also the same types of players that are NOT being pestered by junior teams to leave HS early. They tend to be late bloomers that are not highly in demand for the next level when they are in HS. Plus, as I stated, these older players are not being eliminated. They are simply losing a year of eligibility.

The kids that get pressure now (who we all know are mostly elite blue chip types that are in college long before age 21) will get the same pressure either way.

But go on with your Chicken Little act if you must. It's comedic.

warriors41 · Post by **warriors41** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:53 pm

MNHockeyFan wrote:When you're 25 years old it's past time to move on and get your life underway. You should no longer be an undergrad in college going to school with 18 year olds. If you're still living the dream of making it in the NHL you should be living it in the minor leagues, which would be better preparation for the NHL anyway. Graduate from high school at 18, play two years of juniors if necessary, go to college for four years, and then turn pro if that's what you want to do. Same rules apply to every kid, every school.

I knew a lot of hockey players at BSU, and a lot were older players. They usually know this is the last place they will play competitive hockey. They also want to get a college degree. Why not accomplish those two things at once?

Also, you do realize that those 25 year old players are seniors who are only months away from getting on with their lives right? They're already doing what you're suggesting.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

NCAA Age Restriction Proposal

NCAA Age Restriction Proposal

Re: NCAA Age Restriction Proposal

Re: NCAA Age Restriction Proposal

Re: NCAA Age Restriction Proposal

Re: NCAA Age Restriction Proposal