Gopher Blog wrote: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.
But go on with your Chicken Little act if you must. It's comedic.
Glad I can entertain you. I find your obfuscation laughable as well.
The difference is you can't argue my examples are wrong. If you could, you would. Instead the response is just conjecture. You can venture the opinion but it rings very hollow when the players you claim will get more pressure are not the same types of players affected by this proposed rule.
Not to mention the reality that we will never be able to fully know what the cause might be for various ebbs and flows of early departures. Some years they're up, some years they're down. Is elite league doing a good job keeping more around some years? We don't know. Maybe, maybe not. It's a guess
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.
Why do you think these older players are still living the dream of the NHL. What is wrong with playing as long as you can, if you want? Obviously you haven't been around players who have played 2-3 yrs of Jr and then played at a D1 or D3 school. What I have found out, these older players understand the value of a college education and through their experiences and maturity, are very good students and are motivated to graduate!
Gopher Blog wrote:The difference is you can't argue my examples are wrong. If you could, you would.
The case makes itself. Arguing with you is fruitless because you've never conceded an obvious fact in your life. You have the maroonest and goldest goggles in Minnesota.
Maybe the University of Utah should have their student athletes bypass their missions, so the one and done universities don't have to face the older more mature athletes. i.e. Kentucky Wisconsin in final 4 last year. You don't hear any other sport whining about it. Why is the Don so special?
Gopher Blog wrote:The difference is you can't argue my examples are wrong. If you could, you would.
The case makes itself. Arguing with you is fruitless because you've never conceded an obvious fact in your life. You have the maroonest and goldest goggles in Minnesota.
As I said... You can't dismiss what I said with counterpoints so you don't try. It's obvious. You can't deny that the vast majority of targets for HS hockey "early departures" are a completely different segment of players than the types of players that would be impacted by this potential rule change.
You can dismiss it as bias but in this instance, it's not about what college you cheer for. It's about what (if any) impact it might have on HS hockey. I'd make the same exact points no matter who I cheered for as a college program because those points don't change based on fandom. The kids that get the pressure to leave early are almost entirely represented by a group of top end players that would be in college before even touching age 20 anyway. The late bloomers this rule affects are not going to get that kind of pressure before they graduate because their abilities at that point simply don't warrant it.
Personally, I don't care a ton about the proposal either way. I do think it is silly for guys to be a freshman in sports eligibility at 21. Hell, I remember when Chris Weinke was a college freshman in football at 26... That was idiotic too.
I've only stated that I understand that every college coach is going to advocate things that they feel helps their individual cause. Much like UND and DU wanted to leave behind various schools for a new conference whether they needed to or not. SCSU was pissed about the NCHC when they were left out... then they sing Kumbaya with the rest of them when they get included. Funny how the tune changes when you benefit, right? Or how various small school coaches want a gentleman's agreement in recruiting when it mainly only benefits institutions of their ilk. I understand it's easy to bitch about the big schools and their desires (and I don't entirely blame small school fans for it) but let's not act like all college coaches/administrators aren't doing things for self serving reasons.
Last edited by Gopher Blog on Wed Dec 23, 2015 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
Why do you think these older players are still living the dream of the NHL. What is wrong with playing as long as you can, if you want? Obviously you haven't been around players who have played 2-3 yrs of Jr and then played at a D1 or D3 school. What I have found out, these older players understand the value of a college education and through their experiences and maturity, are very good students and are motivated to graduate!
Not that this should have to be pointed out again but... these players aren't being outlawed from college hockey. All that is happening is they lose one year of eligibility. So they basically play til 24. If you aren't looking like an NHL prospect by 24, I'd say you'd be wise to focus your goals elsewhere (and they can always continue to chase the dream via lower level pro as well). Let's get a grip here... You act like these guys are being banned from opportunities to even suit up at all, etc. Hardly the case.
And I'd dispute your take (to some degree) about what many of these guys "want". Most do not "want" to wait til 21 to start college when many of their HS grad peers are only a year or so away from completely finishing school. Many want to start sooner but are held back by a college coach that's thinking of them as an athlete first, academic second. The player does it because he has to far more than wants to.
I guess I wasn't clear on by what I meant as"want". They realize the NHL is not going to happen, but with a college degree in hand the may want to continue in the minors or overseas. It did not refer to starting college. I may be wrong, but isn't this driven by the Big 10 and the vast majority of the D1 coaches are against it? I thought I read that it doesn't pertain to D3?
mulefarm wrote:I guess I wasn't clear on by what I meant as"want". They realize the NHL is not going to happen, but with a college degree in hand the may want to continue in the minors or overseas.
And this rule change would stop them from pursuing such activities in what way? If they were willing to delay their education til 21 in the first place, something tells me they won't feel bad about delaying their degree to chase money in Europe for a few years. I can't speak for every school but I know the U offers former scholarship athletes the opportunity to return to finish their degree at no cost.
Not sure what you meant about chasing money? I don't think any 24 who wants to continue playing in the minors or over seas is really chasing money, plus they will have a degree in hand. I would guess that most of these players are delaying their education, hoping to get some financial aid and playing at the D1 level. If the vast majority of coaches are against this, and do not see it as a problem, why has it become an issue?
mulefarm wrote:Not sure what you meant about chasing money? I don't think any 24 who wants to continue playing in the minors or over seas is really chasing money, plus they will have a degree in hand. I would guess that most of these players are delaying their education, hoping to get some financial aid and playing at the D1 level. If the vast majority of coaches are against this, and do not see it as a problem, why has it become an issue?
You talked of playing in Europe, etc... if they are simply playing for fun and not money, they don't need pro/European hockey for that. These guys play overseas for money as much as anything. Not AHL/NHL money in most instances but certainly a good enough living to play a sport.
As I said, if they willing to delay on the front end, I doubt they'll be too upset if they have to delay on the back end either.
Many of these older recruits don't commit at the last minute when they are out of juniors options. They often commit well before it gets to that point but the coach simply delays them til 21.
I don't believe I said playing for only fun. They can continue to play because they want to and also earn a living. Why would they leave without a degree, if that was their original goal? Your point on delaying their start, in most chases, is not their choice if they are chasing the D1 dream. You still haven't answered why this is an issue if the vast majority of D1 coaches are against it? Just curious on the U paying for scholarship players education if they want to finish their education. Could a player like Sam Lofquist comeback and earn his degree at no cost?
Delaying isn't their choice... but it doesn't stop them from doing it, right? They do what they have to. Same as leaving a year sooner w/o a degree to keep playing elsewhere isn't going to stop them. The goal may be a degree but there is also a small window of time to make money playing the game if continuing in the sport is a big deal to that guy. There's a much bigger window to come back and finish one year of college if necessary.
I'm not sure on Lofquist. I'm guessing no but I'm admittedly unsure how they judge who qualifies. I'd have to look into that. Clymer used it. I believe Ballard is currently utilizing it. Sounds like roughly 35 or so former athletes have made use of the opportunity since it was put in place.
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.
Well, McDavid has only played in 5 games this year. Didn't exactly get crunched into the boards but got hit/lost an edge and broke his clavicle. So I'm sure he's pretty pumped about that.
Going the other way on this age issue. If the B10 and a few other top programs are worried about the age differential, why do they encourage players to accelerate their HS education so they can start their college career earlier, and in most cases as a 17 yr old? It seems hypocritical to push for a change at one end, but to continue to be self serving at the other end. Also, I don't believe these players are entering college with the idea they will get their degrees in 4 years, or even be around for the 4 yrs.
mulefarm wrote:Going the other way on this age issue. If the B10 and a few other top programs are worried about the age differential, why do they encourage players to accelerate their HS education so they can start their college career earlier, and in most cases as a 17 yr old?
It's not like acceleration at 17 is commonplace in comparison to 21 year old freshmen. Not to mention, it's often just as much an adviser driven activity when you are talking about top prospects capable of doing it. Whether in NCAA or CHL early entry
I believe the issue is age differential and safety. If that is the B10 and some of the power program reasoning, it shouldn't make a difference if it is a top prospect or adviser driven. Since the acceleration is less common and effects less players, common sense would say to change the rule for the younger players, and leave the rules as they are for the older players.
mulefarm wrote:I believe the issue is age differential and safety. If that is the B10 and some of the power program reasoning, it shouldn't make a difference if it is a top prospect or adviser driven. Since the acceleration is less common and effects less players, common sense would say to change the rule for the younger players, and leave the rules as they are for the older players.
I don't think there would be much push back on eliminating players under 18 from playing in college hockey. It is rather uncommon. It might keep a few very elite guys out of college and push them to the CHL though. For instance, Toews would ever have played at UND under such a rule.
But you are missing the point in bringing that up. It was never about eliminating differences between an accelerated 17 year old kid vs a 25 year old senior.
This would bring hockey in line with all other NCAA sports if I am not mistaken.
Junior teams are a business, they need to win to stay in business. It's just my opinion but I'd guess they go with older kids rather than develop 17 year olds they will lose in a year or two. I see more kids staying in high school if this would pass as the top junior teams would be more interested in proven players than developing young kids. The late bloomers would be better off but seniors would be more inclined to stay home instead of start their clock ticking meandering around junior leagues.
mulefarm wrote:I believe the issue is age differential and safety. If that is the B10 and some of the power program reasoning, it shouldn't make a difference if it is a top prospect or adviser driven. Since the acceleration is less common and effects less players, common sense would say to change the rule for the younger players, and leave the rules as they are for the older players.
I don't think there would be much push back on eliminating players under 18 from playing in college hockey. It is rather uncommon. It might keep a few very elite guys out of college and push them to the CHL though. For instance, Toews would ever have played at UND under such a rule.
But you are missing the point in bringing that up. It was never about eliminating differences between an accelerated 17 year old kid vs a 25 year old senior.
I thought the point of the rule change was to close the age gap?
goldy313 wrote:This would bring hockey in line with all other NCAA sports if I am not mistaken.
Junior teams are a business, they need to win to stay in business. It's just my opinion but I'd guess they go with older kids rather than develop 17 year olds they will lose in a year or two. I see more kids staying in high school if this would pass as the top junior teams would be more interested in proven players than developing young kids. The late bloomers would be better off but seniors would be more inclined to stay home instead of start their clock ticking meandering around junior leagues.
You are right, it is a business. The USHL is considered the top Jr league in the US and I believe is a Tier one league. They receive money from the NHL for having their players drafted and that is why it has less 20 yr olds than the NAHL and the other top Tier 2 leagues. Getting the top 17 yr olds and having them drafted is important to their bottom line. They only want these kids for a year or two so they can bring in new draft eligible players. That is why many 19-20 yr olds leave the USHL for the NAHL. They get more playing time instead of playing behind draft eligible kids, who in many cases are getting show cased for the upcoming draft.
I thought the point of the rule change was to close the age gap?
You're focusing part of the discussion on a segment (accelerated 17 year olds) that are relatively rare in college hockey. Especially compared to the number of 21 year old "freshmen".
For a message board that normally hates to see kids move on from high school hockey before they graduate I was shocked to see some people liking this rule change. First of all, take the kids out of it that can actually play college at 17 or 18. Those kids are beyond elite and will be playing NHL hockey in a couple years. For most players, after they play high school or midgets they will need at least 2 years of juniors in order to develop and learn how to play at the college pace. There are many kids that are held back when they are younger because they were not mature enough to start elementary school and graduate at 19 years old or just shy. Those kids, with still needing two years of juniors will now be looking to leave a year early to get their 2 years in without losing a year of eligibility.
