The Swamp

No Junior Hockey or NCAA Hockey discussion this year, so here:

Minnesota Head Coach, Don Lucia, has brought forward a proposal that NCAA Ice Hockey players must be 20 years old or younger as Freshman (currently it is 21), or else lose years of eligibility based on their age. So a 21 year old would only get 3 years of eligibility, etc.

A straw vote of coaches was 51-11 against such a resolution. Yet, because Minnesota is a member of a Power 5 Conference (Big 10) that fields teams in all sports, the Big 10 can bring forward such a resolution without the endorsement of the hockey coaches association. Every issue has 2 sides, but it seems the Big 10 and Minnesota are spewing some sour grapes as the last 2 National Champions have been schools that are much more likely to recruit late bloomers from Juniors (21 year olds, usually) to play in their programs (Union and Providence), and thus less likely to leave early to turn Professional, which has led to some 4 year players who are 25 as Seniors.

Three other tidbits to this issue are: 1) College Coaches Association hold meetings every April to discuss just such issues and potentially forward on for NCAA consideration, yet no such issue was brought up for discussion at the April meetings; 2) This means that the whole of the NCAA will vote on this, potentially passing it, without the support of the coaches in the sport it involves; 3) This could have a negative impact upon potential college recruiting as it relates to Major Juniors for some players (though some, including Jeff Jackson of Notre Dame, think it will help).

Is this an issue that should be further studied? Potentially, yes, if there truly is support. But, the way Lucia has gone about this is less than honorable, at least to me.

In the proposal, would the players be promised a scholarship their fourth year even if they're not playing, or will they just be kicked to the curb once their eligibility/usefulness is expired? (I know that scholarships are only year-to-year anyway, but this sounds kind of threatening to athletes.)

Do you think that this could bleed into other sports? Like, if somebody plays minor-league baseball or serves in the military for a few years, would he only have three years of football eligibility?

A lot of questions here, but I'm against anything that restricts college athletes even further.

I understand this to be hockey specific, and I do not know about non playing scholarship years, though would consider it doubtful.

I'd be happy to get rid of age restrictions in all college sports. Real universities are full of non-college-age students who had some sort of career (or life) and then went to college later. It's part of the environment. It seems that should be fine for sports teams as well. It's supposed to be college students, right?

Fuck. Just lost a pretty lengthy post. Don't have to rewrite it.

1) The B1G looks shady here, and that's unfortunate. They could've followed a more transparent approach and a lot of coaches who don't really care (this really doesn't affect that many players and not that many teams have 25 year olds on the ice) would've just been fine or ambivalent. Now everyone's pissed and suspicious.

2) There is NO QUESTION the rules are not good for the power teams (of which North Dakota is one, btw... Pretty sure they were one of the 11 yes votes in that straw poll.) They are competing with the CHL for the elite players, so they are promising kids they will come in and play right away.

3) Ironically, one of the arguments college hockey will make versus the CHL is that they get to play against older players. CHL is for ages 16-20.

4) If you want to take all age restrictions off the books, fine. But as it stands, this hockey exemption is very much counter to every other* D1 sport. Every other sport, you get one year after graduating high school. Hockey, you get 3. That's a little bonkers, no? (* other sports are skiing and tennis, but tennis is 6 months after graduating h.s.)

As a guy who follows Mountain West football and basketball, this harkens back to lots of bitching I heard about BYU players when they were in that conference. The Mormon kids typically go on a church mission after their freshman year, so the average age of BYU teams is typically at least a couple years older than that of the competition.

sancarlos wrote:As a guy who follows Mountain West football and basketball, this harkens back to lots of bitching I heard about BYU players when they were in that conference. The Mormon kids typically go on a church mission after their freshman year, so the average age of BYU teams is typically at least a couple years older than that of the competition.

God, I hated BYU, hated Utah as well but BYU was always first. Not sure who UNM's big rival is now in conference (at least in basketball.) UNLV? SDSU?

Nonlinear FC wrote:Fuck. Just lost a pretty lengthy post. Don't have to rewrite it.

1) The B1G looks shady here, and that's unfortunate. They could've followed a more transparent approach and a lot of coaches who don't really care (this really doesn't affect that many players and not that many teams have 25 year olds on the ice) would've just been fine or ambivalent. Now everyone's pissed and suspicious.

2) There is NO QUESTION the rules are not good for the power teams (of which North Dakota is one, btw... Pretty sure they were one of the 11 yes votes in that straw poll.) They are competing with the CHL for the elite players, so they are promising kids they will come in and play right away.

3) Ironically, one of the arguments college hockey will make versus the CHL is that they get to play against older players. CHL is for ages 16-20.

4) If you want to take all age restrictions off the books, fine. But as it stands, this hockey exemption is very much counter to every other* D1 sport. Every other sport, you get one year after graduating high school. Hockey, you get 3. That's a little bonkers, no? (* other sports are skiing and tennis, but tennis is 6 months after graduating h.s.)

Actually, UND is strongly against this proposal. Yes they bring in a lot of young high end talent, but they like showcasing them against older players to (hopefully) show they are more ready for Professional Hockey. Toews accelerated HS and came in as a 17 year old. Next year, Tyson Jost will do the same coming in from the BCHL. This year they have 18 year old Brock Boeser who leads all NCAA Freshmen with 13 goals. Only 1 NCAA player of any age has more. But, North Dakota has often blended in the older, more physical player to fill 4th line and 3rd D-pairing spots, which is probably why they oppose this.

I suspect the original intent of the 3 year exemption for hockey was actually to help schools (like Minnesota) who recruited US players heavily. In the past Canadian players were way ahead of US players at age 18, and US players really had to play some Junior hockey to close the gap. Of course, now, most players from everywhere play some Junior hockey before NCAA commitments.

Yeah, I'm speculating on the schools and you obviously have an inside track on that.

I still don't really see it as a big deal on that front, they still get to say they are playing against 23 year old opponents. And as you say, the environment that allowed them to make the 3 year gap argument no longer exists.

Again, they went about it all wrong, but there's a pretty compelling case to move the sport more inline with the rest.

Here's good article on haves and have nots in College Hockey. link

Thanks for that. Pretty good summary. Trying to be objective, I think I see both sides. The one thing that strikes me is the potential for schools to screw players by delaying them and then seeing who does/doesn't pan out. Somewhat similar to SEC schools over-signing football scholarships and then bumping kids out of the program to make room. If we're going to treat collegiate sports as a business, let's go all the way and a) pay them and b) sign contracts with more guarantees for the players.

But I totally get how the Power 5 look like they're trying to tilt the ice on this.

The one thing I'm not very objective about is the Regional thing. That is absolute horseshit. It looks terrible for the sport to have a couple thousand people in the stands at a time when people who aren't diehards are tuning in to watch. It's also just shitty from a game experience standpoint. Players want to play in front of a big crowd, whether it's home or away. Ask anyone of them.

Nonlinear FC wrote:Thanks for that. Pretty good summary. Trying to be objective, I think I see both sides. The one thing that strikes me is the potential for schools to screw players by delaying them and then seeing who does/doesn't pan out. Somewhat similar to SEC schools over-signing football scholarships and then bumping kids out of the program to make room. If we're going to treat collegiate sports as a business, let's go all the way and a) pay them and b) sign contracts with more guarantees for the players.

But I totally get how the Power 5 look like they're trying to tilt the ice on this.

The one thing I'm not very objective about is the Regional thing. That is absolute horseshit. It looks terrible for the sport to have a couple thousand people in the stands at a time when people who aren't diehards are tuning in to watch. It's also just shitty from a game experience standpoint. Players want to play in front of a big crowd, whether it's home or away. Ask anyone of them.

I totally agree with you on the Regionals. When UND hosted they drew 12,000 both nights. Other on site venues would be similar. Neutral sites draw about 2,000. Yet coaches oppose this about 80/20. Makes no sense.

On the verbals and the "gentleman's agreement", that's a 2 way street. Lucia talks about it from the school, but, with only a verbal it is also possible that the player initiates the pulling of it and goes elsewhere. Happens all the time. Athlete can go where ever until he signs the NLI.

Nice goal


b.t.w. he was not drafted and is a free agent after the season.

So, Notre Dame to the B1G...

http://mgoblog.com/content/notre-dame-hockey-big-ten" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Slanted but intelligent analysis there.

Personally, I love it. A lot of ppl in Ann Arbor (and presumably South Bend) will hate it because reasons. Those reasons are dumb.

In a weird twist, this also happens to be the first round matchup on Friday.

Oh, also buried in there is a nugget that I found interesting: There are no regional sites selected after 2017, and the person in charge of the NCAA hockey tournament is saying she is exploring other options, one of which is hosting them on campuses. I think that would be a HUGE step in making this tournament one of the better ones in the country every year.

Sportsdoc - In case you don't click through, he shows a lot of love for Content Native Americans: 1) Pitches the idea of them joining the B1G and 2) Uses them as an example of how dumb the current tournament format is: N. Dak earned the right to host, yet they will be in Cincy playing to an empty barn.

Stupid.

Don't usually follow NCAA but definitely going to be watching Kyle Connor and hoping Michigan can go deep in the tournament. Kid looks NHL ready and I think there's a warm spot for him in the Jets top 9 next season.

travzilla wrote:Don't usually follow NCAA but definitely going to be watching Kyle Connor and hoping Michigan can go deep in the tournament. Kid looks NHL ready and I think there's a warm spot for him in the Jets top 9 next season.

He should win the Hobey Baker and if he's anywhere as near as ready as Dylan Larkin the Jets will be happy.

My minor league team just signed the all time win leader in Robert Morris history as a backup goalie.

We play a 3 game set against Cincy last night (won 4-3), tonight, and Saturday. He will almost certainly get a start either tonight or tomorrow.

One other interesting Kyle Connor stat. His scoring percentage this year on shots taken is 25 percent. That's insane.

I'm sure that's because defenses are shading towards Boo Nieves.

Probably the worst M hockey team since Red took the team over many moons ago.

Berenson earned the right to choose his retirement, but, clearly, the time has come. If you look at the amount of talent on last year's team and line it up with results... A great recruiter who is not up to dealing with game management and connecting with his players.

Love the man. Time to move on.

Went to Providence-Lowell tonight. UML's goalie was named Wall and PC's was named Hawkey. The game was just OK.

I hear Wall is like the best college goalie in the world.

I was there last night...it was the most impressive goal I've seen in a while. The guy knew it too.

Okay so I thought we used to have a Junior Hockey thread, but I could not find it so I am posting it here

In the Pacific Junior Hockey League there is a team called the Knights. I think they are up in Scottie land.

Well in 2014/15 they went 23-19-1-1 (2nd in their division)
In 2015/16 they went 4-38-0-2 (yeah last in the divison)
This season they are the Surrey Knights 0-41-0-3 went

http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/wha ... ess-season

sancarlos wrote:

Dirty fucking dangles.

Swamper?

University of Denver Pioneers play Minnesota-Duluth (Ervandrosses?) tomorrow for the NCAA national championship.

And, whenever Denver does well, I point out that my father played hockey for Denver back in the 1950s. Which is why I grew up in Colorado instead of Saskatchewan. I'll always be grateful for that. Go, Pioneers!

O Pioneers!

Congrats to Denver. 2017 NCAA Champs!

ASU hosting a four-team tournament in Las Vegas in what is expected to be an annual event. Lotta Yooper representation in this one. Two of the three UP college hockey teams.

No doubt a welcome January road trip to the sunshine from UP and Boston!

Is $12 good value for this?

I'd put down $12 if I was nearby

Ditto.

They want $40 per session for that tournament in Las Vegas I linked above which is crazy (I suspect they'll be giving out tickets for free eventually) but I would have paid about $20 or $25 to see two games even though the teams in it are not stellar.

I mean, that's practically free for any sporting event these days but I think I'd need a campus atmosphere and something on the line to go to a women's college hockey game. It's pretty slow

Ryan wrote:I mean, that's practically free for any sporting event these days but I think I'd need a campus atmosphere and something on the line to go to a women's college hockey game. It's pretty slow

I say this only half-jokingly, but my final decision would come down to how much beers cost at the arena not how much the tickets cost.