http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/20...raises.php

Quote:A Big Ten-sponsored piece of legislation is currently in the NCAA's pipeline and scheduled for vote in April, despite the objections of the vast majority of college hockey coaches and personnel.

The legislation calls for lowering the age limit for incoming recruits from 21 to 20 years old, or, more accurately, two years past the player's expected high school graduation date. Anyone enrolling in college after 20 years old, would lose one year of NCAA eligibility for each year.

In my opinion a desperate attempt to level the playing field with the rest of the College Hockey world, Big Ten hockey tends to recruit more kids out of high school rather than junior or prep schools, less experienced and possibly not fully grown, while losing its stars to the NHL within a year or two of them joining the programs.

Michigan Tech's Opinion Article Against The Rule Change

Quote:Scott McLaughlin, with WEEI out of Boston, spoke with current Notre Dame head coach Jeff Jackson about why he and other coaches are likely in favor of the legislation. Jeff first talked about how the rule changed while he was gone from college. He previously coached at Lake Superior State where he won a national championship “thriving on older freshmen” who had even lost a year of eligibility because they were playing in junior hockey as 20-year-olds. The biggest issue with this situation which rarely happens now, is that it feels like a disservice to the student athletes who only get 3 years to complete their degree while playing. It seems silly that a coach would advocate for a rule change that would mean less scholarship money paid to some players because they bloomed later, making it a bigger financial investment for them to graduate.

I think desperate is the key word in the OP. Or maybe it's fear. Is it just me, or have teams like Minnesota and Wisconsin fallen off since the WCHA broke apart? That seemed to open the door for Hockey East to start dominating again. B1G hockey is just not the same, and neither is the NCHC.

Hockey is one of the few sports where a school doesn't have to be a P5 program to excel, but schools like BC, Denver and BU are just fine with young players who skip to the pros after one or two years. Where the playing field is leveled is with the smaller programs. The U.S. Air Force Academy became relevant when it started recruiting players out of junior hockey. Isn't part of the allure of college hockey seeing Minnesota-Duluth or Lake Superior State win it all? Baseball might be the other college sport where "bluebloods" don't dominate.

The Big Ten made the mistake of forming too early, should have waited for more Big Ten programs to move up from the ACHA ranks or taken affiliates that would've bolstered their competition.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Nebraska put all the provisions in place for ice hockey in their new arena? Also, haven't Illinois and/or Iowa considered adding hockey squads?

I'd like to see a Big Ten sponsored women's ice hockey league as well. I know only 5 schools sponsor it so far, but if a 6th does I'd be shocked if they don't start sponsoring it the same way they did with men's ice hockey.

(01-30-2016 12:06 AM)brista21 Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Nebraska put all the provisions in place for ice hockey in their new arena? Also, haven't Illinois and/or Iowa considered adding hockey squads?

I think you are correct. But it has been a few years since I've heard/read it.