Good thing is those folks share the minority opinion. Most of us understand this will be bad for the MSHSL. I know one poster who is way too deep into the B1G's jock to understand why, but I'll lay it out for anybody still on the fence...NotMinnesotan wrote: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.
The USHL limits "overage" players to 5 per roster. Some, but not all of them will be affected by this rule. The committed players deferred into that role and the uncommitted players looking at the potential of not securing a scholarship before their "overage" season are faced with a daunting choice...
1) Attempt to make the USHL roster again (no guarantee) in their overage season knowing that they're giving up a year of NCAA eligibility, leaving them one year shy of a college degree before attempting to make the pros. Or, they can plan on staying in school and paying for their senior year of college and giving up or deferring their dream of playing pro hockey.
2) Opt for a D3 school and retain four years of eligibility.
3) Pursue a pro career as an overager in the CHL.
4) Quit hockey.
A handful may take option one, but only a simple minded or cognitively dissonant hockey fan couldn't understand that most kids would go with options two, three, or four. These means that overage players in the USHL will be greatly diminished. I would expect that, if the rule passes, most if not all of those spots will be occupied by players unaffected by the rule. I would also expect some teams to be less inclined or even unable to use up those spots.
The NAHL is a similar predicament but to an even greater degree, as they do not have the same cap on overagers that the USHL has. Their rosters have a very high percentage of "overage" players who were recently offered or are still pursuing scholarship offers (or even walk-on roster spots). They'll face the same decision.
The end result, of course, is that the average age of a USHL and NAHL player will drop as the older players opt out. So, who will take these empty roster spots? Obviously, they'll be backfilled at the younger end as you can't manufacture more players of the same birth year from thin air. This means, more of the 16 and 17 year old players who tried-out for NAHL and USHL teams and WOULD have accepted if offered will now accept when offered. This hits at the heart of Tier 1 AAA and the MSHSL.
I predicted an early departure increase of 30%. Considering that we recorded 18 early departures this season and a 30% increase would only be 24 early departures, I think I was being really, really conservative with my prediction. There are 16 (typical) USHL teams and 22 NAHL teams. Is it unrealistic to think that each team would need at least one more 16 or 17 year-old player from the MSHSL? I don't think so. Scary prospect.
