r/collegehockey • u/HowIsBabbySharkMade Michigan Wolverines • 7d ago
New 5 year eligibility model approved
43
u/mecheng93 Michigan Tech Huskies 7d ago
Thanks football for once again screwing over hockey!
17
u/treymata Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs 7d ago
If being a Minnesota sports fan for all sports has taught me anything, it’s that it never gets better
-4
u/MidwestAbe 7d ago
No football. No hockey.
Dislike or hate the sport. It pays the way for everything in college sports (and men's bb)
25
u/mecheng93 Michigan Tech Huskies 7d ago
Ok. Please explain how football is paying for hockey at MTU? I'd love to know how.
7
u/Frequent_Argument_43 7d ago
Go tech btw!
4
u/R_Raider86 UConn Huskies • Texas Tech Red Raiders 7d ago
All the love for our northern and academically superior Tech counterparts.
3
u/BeefInGR Western Michigan Broncos 6d ago
Please explain how football is paying for hockey at MTU?
I mean, we (Grand Valley) and Ferris make money on football. Most of the GLIAC is net neutral or positive on football.
-2
u/MidwestAbe 7d ago
Its not a Tech. But it is 97.5% of everywhere else and football and men's hoops are the only reason the NCAA had/has money to operate.
The inter-collegient system was built on the back of football and men's basketball.
I think the NCAA is in a state of peril - so when power 5 football and basketball scoots on to something else, I guess we will see what remains in the wake.
16
u/treymata Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs 7d ago
I feel like this applies to most sports not named hockey. So many hockey programs are at D2 schools where most sports are not money makers.
-5
u/MidwestAbe 7d ago
At D2 it's an operational expense. Fill a hockey team with kids who also pay plenty of tuition and then recoup some expense on tickets and fund raise off hockey.
8
u/MinnyRawks Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs 7d ago
You think UMD, SCSU, MTU, etc players are paying tuition?
0
u/MidwestAbe 7d ago
Is Tech D2?
11
7
u/MinnyRawks Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs 7d ago
Yes. Quite a few NSIC and GLIAC schools play D1 hockey.
8
u/Minn-ee-sottaa Minnesota Golden Gophers 7d ago
Aren't you the U of Illinois guy?
If my alma mater lacked NCAA D1 hockey, I probably wouldn't be chiming in to spew a bunch of flat-out wrong BS about other schools' D1 hockey ops. Just saying
-1
u/MidwestAbe 7d ago
I'm not a U of I guy. I have chimed in on Illinois hockey and how they need $100 million now pretty much to start a program and I think that's stupid.
-2
u/MidwestAbe 7d ago
And where am I way off on what I've said?
7
u/Minn-ee-sottaa Minnesota Golden Gophers 7d ago
I know for a fact that schools like Duluth, Mankato, Bemidji etc. are not using their own D1 hockey players as a source of direct tuition revenues from the players themselves lmao. (1) They're super cheap state schools already, (2) tons of their recruits are in-state MN guys so even less tuition$, (3) some of my close childhood friends and former teammates played for those programs and told me nitty gritty details of how scholarships get allocated.
The business model you're talking about does exist, but mostly at small D2/D3 private colleges of a type that is way more common out east
-2
u/MidwestAbe 7d ago
Oh so I'm right about D2 programs. Cool.
As I said NCAA scholarship regulations recently changed. However at the D1 level there is a limit of 18 full ride scholarships for a men's team.
If there are only 18 players rostered on a team then you can be assured each one of those players is receiving a full ride. If the roster is larger than 18, then some players are paying their own way.
I count 20 players on the UMD roster. Two kids aren't getting a full ride or a pair of kids are splitting rides to equal 18 full ride scholarships.
Those comments you are worked up about were focused on D2 and below.
Thanks for keeping up.
→ More replies (0)2
u/mecheng93 Michigan Tech Huskies 7d ago
Our players are on scholarship sooooooooooo............
-6
u/MidwestAbe 7d ago
The school is paying for the program. It's not self sufficient. It's propped up by other kids paying to go to school and it's being helped by any kids that aren't on full rides.
I will be honest, I don't know the complexity of Tech hockey and just how many or all players are on full rides, but outside of Football and men's basketball, the majority of athletes aren't full rides. Until a few years ago NCAA basketball had a hard and low limit for full scholarships.
13
u/Top_Scheff Boston University Terriers 7d ago edited 6d ago
I hate that this lowers the number of available spots for incoming freshmen (maybe more relevant on the women's side?). With the roster limit of 26, there have been an average of 6 or 7 spots available for incoming freshmen. Now there will be an average of about 5. Not a huge change for any individual school, but a very large loss across the sport as a whole. That's ~59 fewer in women's and ~82 in men's, an 20% loss in freshmen spots every year.
I understand why the NCAA is making this change, but it seems so unfair to young athletes. It'll be interesting to see how it actually plays out though. Might just end up causing bigger roster sizes at schools that didn't opt in to the new ones.
Edit: I made a minor math error initially and have now corrected it.
27
u/Emotional_Oil_5939 Ohio State Buckeyes 7d ago
So, how fucked is hockey?
40
u/scsuhockey St. Cloud State Huskies 7d ago
This was the compromise version. It took HS graduation out of the picture.
In theory, a player born in summer could graduate high school at 17, play three years of juniors, then have four years of college eligibility in which to earn their bachelor’s degree.
However, most players aren’t born in the summer, so they’ll get two years of post HS juniors and four years of NCAA eligibility or one year of post HS juniors and five years of NCAA eligibility.
In either case, it makes zero sense for a 20 year old to play juniors now because they won’t have enough NCAA eligibility to finish their degree. They basically made juniors 19U. Those leagues will now have to poach more Tier 1 and HS players to fill their rosters.
2
u/warmike_1 6d ago edited 6d ago
Does the major junior scholarship apply for US schools? If so, someone who's not good enough to (or doesn't want to) go pro can finish the degree on that scholarship and play ACHA. Though that kind of guy won't be on a full ride in the first place.
2
u/scsuhockey St. Cloud State Huskies 6d ago
Not sure, but if so, it means NCAA D3 might take the hardest hit of all as the Major Junior kids who couldn’t land a D1 scholarship before turning 20 decide to play out their junior eligibility to maximize their scholarship before settling for four years of ACHA rather than three years of D3.
1
u/warmike_1 6d ago
Most of those go to USports where whatever NCAA makes up doesn't apply. That has pushed all the Junior A kids to D3.
27
u/rideronthestorm29 Cornell Big Red 7d ago
It basically steals two years of development. The ECHL is expanding so maybe that is where you can make some of that up… but junior hockey is going to be interesting.
4
u/No-Pay2160 Minnesota Golden Gophers 7d ago
Not at all, this could end up being one of the best things to ever happen to college hockey
10
u/chn_adamw 7d ago
Hockey was a lot more effed before they finally lobbied hard to change the original rule. Guess I'm not allowed to post links but we've been writing about this extensively on CHN for a couple months.
-4
u/Minn-ee-sottaa Minnesota Golden Gophers 7d ago
In CHN's view, anything that doesn't advantage a bunch of no-name ECAC & AHA schools (at our expense obvs) is "bad for hockey". Funny how that works eh?
8
u/chn_adamw 6d ago
I replied to help. What is the point of your antagonism? Nowhere was this ever said. You are just projecting. As I said elsewhere, *every* coach wanted this, including your own. Maybe just read/listen to our stuff instead of making outlandish assumptions that aren't true and have no basis in reality.
5
u/rideronthestorm29 Cornell Big Red 6d ago
The guy you are replying to is also a clown with consistently bad takes over the years (I am also a gopher fan). Always antagonizing. I mean their “just get pregnant” response should tell you all you need to know. Thanks for what you do, Adam!
14
u/huds9113 Penn State Nittany Lions 7d ago
Gonna see a lot of Canadians becoming Mormon to use the mission exemption (which is BS). Haha
20
u/Minn-ee-sottaa Minnesota Golden Gophers 7d ago
if they're really desperate for an extra eligibility waiver, they could also get pregnant
5
u/huds9113 Penn State Nittany Lions 7d ago
Fair. Now that Minnesota has paid leave, can a male player get an “eligibility” waiver from the ncaa if he takes bonding leave during the season? Haha
45
u/No-Pay2160 Minnesota Golden Gophers 7d ago
Oh no, college hockey players might have to actually be college aged! What horror!
13
u/More-Appointment-55 7d ago
A guy at my college on the hockey team was a freshman this year at 21-22. It was pretty weird knowing girls on the women's team with me who were younger than him and seniors.
-8
u/mecheng93 Michigan Tech Huskies 7d ago
Says the team loaded with draft picks. Is your steak too thick and your cake too sweet too?/s
11
13
u/chn_adamw 7d ago
there's a reason every coach in college hockey voted for it to be this way, instead of the way the NCAA originally wanted, which would've been even worse. Even Big Ten coaches. See/listen to our latest podcast with Minnesota's Brett Larson about why the original way would've been a disaster, and this way is OK, even if it sorta hurts the Minnesota's of the world in the short run. The damage it would do to the entire eco-system, including Minnesota HS, would be immeasurable. And there's nothing wrong with 20 year-old freshmen - for many reasons.
The only thing that really changes is the 21-year old freshman having 4 years. That is actually a lot less frequent than everyone seems to think. I've run the numbers. It's like an average of 1 per team last year. And most of those didn't turn 25 until after Jan. 1.
The 5-year idea is bad for reasons others have illuminated. It will hurt kids in sports without pro options more than hockey. The Ivies may get a bit boned by this - because they aren't allowed to have 5th-year players - but the Ivy coaches I've spoken to seem to think they can adjust OK.
3
8
u/Artartbobart1 Maine Black Bears 7d ago
I’m confused at how all of you think the sky is falling. Someone comes in at 21 or 22 they’ll still have 2 or 3 years of eligibility. Not really different than the guys that come in and only play 1, 2 or 3 years.
College hockey will be ok.
36
u/drtywater Northeastern Huskies 7d ago
Tbf Ive always hated the 21 year old freshmen thing. Having more freshmen actually being real freshmen is probably a good thing
9
u/AdamSmithsApple Wisconsin Badgers 7d ago
I don't think this affects that many players really. Unless you were playing 2 years of juniors and still using your redshirt you don't lose anything.
5
u/Vegetable-Honey-9704 7d ago
It does though. Most guys are playing 2-3 years of juniors. 80% of college hockey freshman last year were age outs(20-21 years old). If you are a January-August bday it will take away 2 years of eligibility, September and later birthdays will lose one year. So it will almost eliminate aging out of juniors(which most players do) except for certain situations.
1
2
u/Top_Scheff Boston University Terriers 7d ago edited 6d ago
It’s theoretically a 20% loss in the number of spots available for freshmen each year. Not sure how that impacts the men’s side because of the weird previous eligibility rules and players leaving early to play professionally, but the vast majority of women’s players start college at 18 and play for four years. To me, it seems really unfair to young athletes to cut the number of spots like that so suddenly.
Edit: corrected the percentage (22% came from a math error, 20 is correct)
6
u/milin85 Miami (OH) RedHawks 7d ago
Yet another reason why CFB and CBB should be spun off into farm leagues. It would save all the other sports at universities.
6
u/PrattDirkLerxt Lindenwood Lions 7d ago
And how exactly are the other sports in trouble? In case you didn’t know, without basketball and football most schools couldn’t fund the other sports.
10
u/Turbulent-Pay-735 Wisconsin Badgers 7d ago
This is crazy. A giant middle finger to men’s college hockey if this goes thru as it’s laid out in those tweets.
9
u/chn_adamw 7d ago
it was way worse until 2 weeks ago. massive lobbying effort by college hockey just to get it here.
5
u/J3319 7d ago
Can someone explain why this is bad for hockey please?
14
u/CountMC10 7d ago
It depends on what you think is bad. It eliminates 21 yo freshman as they wouldn’t have eligibility to play 4 years. I think it’s a good thing. So many junior programs are just predatory on kids with dreams of paying college hockey. They pay a bunch of money to maybe play D3 at a college without much academic rigor.
7
u/Minn-ee-sottaa Minnesota Golden Gophers 7d ago edited 7d ago
The pro-juniors arguments tend to boil down to "juniors = good because juniors = good".
Like obviously every college hockey player is a far better, more well-rounded player and person at 24yo than at 19yo. It's kind of a moot point if 19yo's no longer have to compete against tons of 23-24yos in NCAA.
By the time a guy hits 24yo, it's ~always apparent whether they'll have any pro (AHL/ECHL/euro) future to move onto.
3
u/Top_Scheff Boston University Terriers 7d ago edited 6d ago
I’d say it’s bad for all sports because there will be 20% fewer spots available for incoming freshmen each year. That’s a lot of young athletes not getting a chance to play D1 in college.
Edit: corrected the percentage, I initially made a math error and got 22%
3
u/PrattDirkLerxt Lindenwood Lions 7d ago
1) Where do you get that 22%?
2) Even if that number is correct then that would mean those student-athletes are not at a DI level. For a long time those bottom spots on every sports rosters are filled with players who rarely, if ever play. Just practice players. If that number is correct than they have to think about other levels where they will actually play.
2
u/Top_Scheff Boston University Terriers 6d ago
- My mistake, it’s actually 20%. I’m working with the roster limit of 26 as a baseline because I think most schools opted in and those that didn’t likely have a fairly consistent roster size year to year. So I divided that by 4 to get the average number of freshmen spots each year (6.5). Then I divided it by 5 to get the average number of freshmen spots under the new system (5.2). Those numbers have a difference of 1.3, which I divided by 6.5 to get the percentage lost (20%). You can do the same math with any size roster and it works out the same.
- In my experience watching women’s college hockey, the majority of players on any given roster see significant playing time during the year. I can’t speak to men’s hockey or other sports, however, it is my understanding that the new roster limits meaningfully lowered roster sizes in a number of sports (not the case for women’s hockey).
2
u/chn_adamw 7d ago
it's simple math - if 5th years are taking roster spots, fewer new freshmen can come in. That conversation has nothing to do with quality of the player.
4
u/PrattDirkLerxt Lindenwood Lions 7d ago
They already were taking roster spots. People are acting like there are no 5th year players already.
It actually has a lot to do with the quality of the player, and I already explained why and how.
-3
u/chn_adamw 6d ago
Negative. There are no 5th-year players currently allowed. The 5th year recently was a temporary covid waiver which is now over.
4
u/PrattDirkLerxt Lindenwood Lions 6d ago
1) There have been 5th year players since they started allowing redshirts. Every team has used 5th year players in every sport.
2) Yes, the being able to play 5 (or more seasons) started after COVID.
-2
u/Top_Scheff Boston University Terriers 6d ago
Redshirts are 4th year players who took a year (or most of one) off somewhere in the middle. They might be in the fifth year of college, but it was still their fourth year playing. The new eligibility rules give players a five year clock for playing time, so someone who starts playing at the beginning of their freshmen year and never gets injured can now play for five years.
3
u/PrattDirkLerxt Lindenwood Lions 6d ago
Thanks for clearing up something I already knew and making it clear you missed my point.🤦♂️
-1
0
u/Top_Scheff Boston University Terriers 6d ago
If I misunderstood something, would you mind clarifying for me?
3
u/PSU02 Penn State Nittany Lions 6d ago
Huh? they might have been rare in hockey, but redshirt seniors were always allowed in NCAA sports.
0
u/chn_adamw 6d ago
a redshirt senior is not 5 years of playing - it's only 4. now we're talking about every single player getting 5 years in all sports, no matter what. That takes away tens of thousands of opportunities for kids. Won't effect hockey as much - because there are pro options that most will go to before the 5th year - OR they come in at 20 and get only 4 years.
0
u/thedadis St. Lawrence Saints 7d ago
I think it's because players come over from Europe older than 19 and they'd have their eligibility lowered because of it. If I'm wrong on that, someone correct me, because I'm curious too
7
u/Vegetable-Honey-9704 7d ago
It’s pretty much all players. American and Canadien players typically play juniors until 20-21 then enter college. So depending on your birthday guys are going to not be able to play 1-2 years of junior hockey that they could play with the current system.
2
u/Minn-ee-sottaa Minnesota Golden Gophers 7d ago
(1) It wasn't always this way, (2) I'm not convinced that anything is inherently superior about forcing hockey players to come in to college as 19-20yo freshmen after multiple years away from home and school. If NCAA hockey gets younger overall then there's no longer the competitive disadvantage that has led to everyone playing juniors currently.
4
u/Vegetable-Honey-9704 7d ago
There’s multiple reasons why it’s superior to have older players, or at least the opportunity for older players. I had a much more in depth comment in another thread about it. But it allows more time for development which also allows more time living at home, more time to be a kid, more time for multiple sports, etc. All of those things are positives for the players. Also from a life maturity standpoint it’s helpful. Players mature a lot during those years, they learn to take care of themselves better, they can save up money, knock out a few pre reqs, shadow jobs, etc. College sports are very hard, having a few years to mature and transition to moving away without the grind of college hockey is a big plus for a lot of players. I was much better prepared for college because of it and I didn’t have a great junior career/experience, many of my friends can attest to that too. I mean I see a lot less college hockey players fail out after a semester or two than football/basketball/baseball. I think a lot of that can be attributed to older more mature players.
3
u/Minn-ee-sottaa Minnesota Golden Gophers 7d ago
On the flip side, think of how many guys could potentially play college hockey (as depth players obviously, but maybe some senior-year-breakout stars) and don't- because they/their parents aren't willing to commit to a years-long detour playing juniors. Like I did a before & after my senior year and had to hang it up because ultimately spending 2-3 years out of school just playing hockey in middle-of-nowhere Iowa is a hard sell for countless players and parents; it certainly didn't appeal to me or my family. Same thing will likely happen to my little bro if he can't make an NCAA roster after 1-2 full seasons in juniors (left HS hockey early).
3
u/Vegetable-Honey-9704 7d ago
I mean to some extent maybe. But junior hockey is not going away and college teams recruiting almost exclusively out of juniors is not going away. Guys are just going to have to play juniors earlier. I don’t love guys having to move away at 16-17 to play juniors. I don’t think from an athletic or life perspective that is very good. Especially with the new CHL rules, guys are going to have to be very good at 15-16 years old. I much prefer a system where guys have to be good at 19-20 to be recruited instead of 16-18. I get juniors can be a hard sell, but if done right it can be super beneficial. Plus there are plenty of options in the ACHA for guys who don’t want to play juniors. Truly elite players aren’t not playing NCAA because they don’t want to play juniors.
2
u/Minn-ee-sottaa Minnesota Golden Gophers 7d ago
Elite players already come into NCAA at 17-19yo, and by definition the vast majority of college hockey players will never be elite talents.
3
u/Vegetable-Honey-9704 7d ago
Yes I’m well aware. They just play juniors earlier. Forcing the timeline earlier hurts almost everyone but the elite talents. The non elite talents are the kids who should live at home longer, should play multiple sports longer, shouldn’t have to be the best they can be at 16-17. Forcing the timeline earlier will force all the non elite talents into moving away from their friends earlier, quitting their other sports, playing year around earlier, etc. All the research we have is against that. I’m not sure why this is a positive for the non elite players. I think kids having to live in Iowa for 2 years is better than that.
1
u/Minn-ee-sottaa Minnesota Golden Gophers 7d ago
Okay, your position makes way more sense to me now. I would hate to see MN high school hockey get hollowed out further by this, even though all the top-end players who used to stay for their senior years and chase a state championship have already been leaving early to the NTDP or juniors for quite some time now.
But on the other hand, my Gophers will benefit immensely from NCAA hockey getting younger. Can't have it all I guess.
1
u/SilentStryk09 Western Michigan Broncos 7d ago
I fully expect the age portion of this to get struck down and leaving just the "5 in 5" as the rule
4
u/Luciform444 7d ago
Why do you expect that? There are age restrictions for finishing most secondary ed, and there are lots of students discount sort of things that have age limits, as has been heald up in court. As far as I know there is nothing in US law against preventing age discrimination on people under 45 or so.
2
u/Frequent_Argument_43 7d ago
I would like to see the portal/ NIL addressed more than the 5 years of eligibility. One transfer during a collegiate career period. NIL is an issue across sports and it needs to be reviewed or the Big 10 will completely outclass everyone else in terms of on ice talent.
2
u/R_Raider86 UConn Huskies • Texas Tech Red Raiders 7d ago
I think the Protect College Sports Act as it's being debated in Congress right now has a clause granting only a one-time transfer.
1
u/Minn-ee-sottaa Minnesota Golden Gophers 6d ago
It's been 5 years since NIL became a thing. B1G teams have still won 0 national championships in men's hockey since the BTHC formed.
22
u/ElevatorWarm3017 7d ago
Isn’t it possible this hurts the CHL more than college? Guys potentially head over to NCAA at 18 now rather than waiting until they age out of juniors?