Jackson Nevers is currently captaining a real nice Clark Cup run for Madison. I’m sorry but I don’t see why he couldn’t be a good depth option as a guy who pushes guys ahead of him to play better, finishes checks and bleeds maroon and gold.
Jackson Nevers is currently captaining a real nice Clark Cup run for Madison. I’m sorry but I don’t see why he couldn’t be a good depth option as a guy who pushes guys ahead of him to play better, finishes checks and bleeds maroon and gold.
that Madison team better be thanking their stars Heil is on a lifetime type run. they've gotten hammered in numerous games and won. Nevers has played 2 of the games (was hurt).
Don't think anyone has said he can't be here, but it should be with expectation he's a healthy scratch and competing to get into the lineup (and then you move on from Harris).
Kvasnicka's season ends at hands of Everett and Dupont. Finishes his WHL season with 100 points in 80 games. We'll see if he puts out the "thank you" post to make it official he's coming in
Kitchener and Humphreys still alive and up 2-1 in the conf finals. He has also now hit 100 points, though in 75 games.
Casey is probably unlikely to get the net again this year unless Switzer blows a game.
No issues with Nevers coming in. I think we're all a bit scarred from being inundated with fourth-liners. If the staff can find a solid center to round out the forward group, you can have B. Cullen/Nevers, etc. battle for time on the fourth-line so everyone moves into an appropriate slot.
If Nevers embraces the role he would be asked to play as a bottom of the line up guy, he could very well push guys out of spots, outside of John, no one on the 4th really played to the role you have to take on in that spot.
Other random aspect you have to look at now given the NCAA is hell bent on fucking over college hockey
When Charlie Baker first took over as NCAA czar years ago, I remember the CHN and USCHO guys were all stoked and saying that Baker, as a Masshole, knows puck and would be great for college hockey. So much for that!
I would support some kind of age limit, but the implementation being proposed (railroaded?) is the worst possible way they could’ve done it
Other random aspect you have to look at now given the NCAA is hell bent on fucking over college hockey
When Charlie Baker first took over as NCAA czar years ago, I remember the CHN and USCHO guys were all stoked and saying that Baker, as a Masshole, knows puck and would be great for college hockey. So much for that!
I would support some kind of age limit, but the implementation being proposed (railroaded?) is the worst possible way they could’ve done it
think Chorske is very right. Leave after soph/jr year, that way you can play Jr and slow your credits down for your graduation date so it hits at 19. School has you play one extra year of Jr and come in at 20 and play 4 years. It's not going to meaningfully change the way it ends up, but you're going to really alter the expected dev pathway for many of the middle/lower tier guys and adding the 5th year is just stupid.
What about those who graduated 3 years ago and now played 3 years of Jr because a coach told them to? Now they only get 2 years on campus and their school is not going to be covered like they thought. The Canadian/European stuff is really interesting as well as their school calendars are much different and that could be a HUGE deal in bball as it is right now with all the Euros coming over.
Just implement the rule for football as that is clearly all they care about. No idea why they're doing this elsewhere and pretty damn obvious they did 0 homework on other sports and how things work.
Long term maybe you get hockey back to guys coming "straight" from HS, but far more likely you're going to see an exodus for Jr earlier unless HS starts playing way more games and elongating the season (they won't).
Just implement the rule for football as that is clearly all they care about. No idea why they're doing this elsewhere and pretty damn obvious they did 0 homework on other sports and how things work.
I'm going to guess there's probably some kind of fairness, title ix, whatever crap that stops them from just implementing it for football.
Not like they likely care anyways, in fact if anything the NCAA probably looks at the older player trend in hockey as a plague (I cannot fault them).
Just implement the rule for football as that is clearly all they care about. No idea why they're doing this elsewhere and pretty damn obvious they did 0 homework on other sports and how things work.
I'm going to guess there's probably some kind of fairness, title ix, whatever crap that stops them from just implementing it for football.
Not like they likely care anyways, in fact if anything the NCAA probably looks at the older player trend in hockey as a plague (I cannot fault them).
on point 2, i'm guessing if you asked Charlie Baker what the average age in college hockey is, he'd have no idea.
on point 1, they change scholarship limits constantly for varying sports, let them revenue share however they want, etc. They're just thinking of football and bball and all the guys petitioning for extra years and this is their mechanism to try have a blanket rule to appease coaches and ADs to make it simple.
Again, there's so little thought from the NCAA to literally anything else other than football and men's bball. From their own presser
"The new age-based model produced by the Cabinet and discussed by the board today is a great step forward in simplifying and stabilizing college sports, especially football. In addition to clearly defining an age range of college players, it allows student-athletes to compete over the entirety of their eligibility period," said Sam Edwards, a football student-athlete at Michigan State and member of the board.
"This makes a world of sense in football for coaches and players alike, especially in the context of roster limits, where coaches can now use their entire roster without worrying about 'saving' a subset of players for redshirts. In a sport where many young players come in ready to contribute to varying degrees and in different phases of the game, this new eligibility landscape will be good for the game," Edwards said.
Oddly enough, no the students who are on the board are not hockey players nor hockey affiliated. The MSU football player is the only one of the board even at a school who has D1 hockey.
What about those who graduated 3 years ago and now played 3 years of Jr because a coach told them to? Now they only get 2 years on campus and their school is not going to be covered like they thought
Hopefully they band together and sue the NCAA. Then it’ll immediately get walked back, right?
What about those who graduated 3 years ago and now played 3 years of Jr because a coach told them to? Now they only get 2 years on campus and their school is not going to be covered like they thought
Hopefully they band together and sue the NCAA. Then it’ll immediately get walked back, right?
i'd envision this is a loss in court for the NCAA (why should college sports be age restricted seems like a pretty easy counter suit. What if I want to serve in military, family reasons made me not able to go straight to college, etc? Will be interesting to watch
What about those who graduated 3 years ago and now played 3 years of Jr because a coach told them to? Now they only get 2 years on campus and their school is not going to be covered like they thought
Hopefully they band together and sue the NCAA. Then it’ll immediately get walked back, right?
i'd envision this is a loss in court for the NCAA (why should college sports be age restricted seems like a pretty easy counter suit. What if I want to serve in military, family reasons made me not able to go straight to college, etc? Will be interesting to watch
as a practicing attorney I have a few thoughts on the legal aspects.
First, the law doesn’t really care about age discrimination when it affects young (<50, 60y/o) people. There’s a ton of somewhat arbitrary but legally valid age restrictions in day-to-day life.
Second, junior hockey players who lose years of NCAA eligibility (because their college coaches told them to spend some post-HS seasons in juniors) can make a very compelling claim of detrimental reliance, i.e. they relied on the schools’ promise of 4 years’ NCAA eligibility to their own detriment resulting in $$$ damages.
First, the law doesn’t really care about age discrimination when it affects young (<50, 60y/o) people. There’s a ton of somewhat arbitrary but legally valid age restrictions in day-to-day life.
So being >60yo, are you saying I'd have a good chance to sue for NCAA eligibility since I never played any college sports? Maybe I can take Harris' spot this season. Might need to give Larson a call before he fills up the roster.
First, the law doesn’t really care about age discrimination when it affects young (<50, 60y/o) people. There’s a ton of somewhat arbitrary but legally valid age restrictions in day-to-day life.
So being >60yo, are you saying I'd have a good chance to sue for NCAA eligibility since I never played any college sports? Maybe I can take Harris' spot this season. Might need to give Larson a call before he fills up the roster.
If you enroll at the U, have eligibility, try out, make the team, and then they cut you because of your age…then yes. I don’t get the age hang up. Anyone who is legally enrolled in at a school, with eligibility, should be able to play whatever sport they want if they can make the team. If you’re an 18 year old getting pushed out by a 40 year old, for a reserve spot, then it should tell you something. Get better or find another school.
If you’re an 18 year old getting pushed out by a 40 year old, for a reserve spot, then it should tell you something.
Gots me thinkin...
Maybe we could just find a bunch of middle-aged guys that had a cup of coffee in the ECHL with a year or two of eligibility left... 🤭 Old man strength could be the key to a championship...
If you’re an 18 year old getting pushed out by a 40 year old, for a reserve spot, then it should tell you something.
Gots me thinkin...
Maybe we could just find a bunch of middle-aged guys that had a cup of coffee in the ECHL with a year or two of eligibility left... 🤭 Old man strength could be the key to a championship...
probably wouldn’t hurt in a single elimination tournament. I don’t know too many middle aged people who’d be willing to quit their family supporting job, to take out student loans, enroll in at least 12 credits a semester, live with a bunch of 19-20 year old kids. But hey, if they do want to, and can make the team…more power to them. Im waaaaaayyyyyy too far in student loan debt to quit my job and go back for more school. Don’t need to worry about me
First, the law doesn’t really care about age discrimination when it affects young (<50, 60y/o) people. There’s a ton of somewhat arbitrary but legally valid age restrictions in day-to-day life.
So being >60yo, are you saying I'd have a good chance to sue for NCAA eligibility since I never played any college sports? Maybe I can take Harris' spot this season. Might need to give Larson a call before he fills up the roster.
If you enroll at the U, have eligibility, try out, make the team, and then they cut you because of your age…then yes. I don’t get the age hang up. Anyone who is legally enrolled in at a school, with eligibility, should be able to play whatever sport they want if they can make the team. If you’re an 18 year old getting pushed out by a 40 year old, for a reserve spot, then it should tell you something. Get better or find another school.
Yeah. That trying out thing might be a problem. That and would have a tough time going back to school.
As a parent of a about to graduate senior who played high school hockey I love the 5 year plan. No way a kid who wants to play at a D3 school should ever have to go play juniors for 2-3 years, its absolutely ridiculous. The whole juniors system is broken. NAHL now requires you to play NALH3, pay to play, before they will consider you for the upper league.
As a parent of a about to graduate senior who played high school hockey I love the 5 year plan. No way a kid who wants to play at a D3 school should ever have to go play juniors for 2-3 years, its absolutely ridiculous. The whole juniors system is broken. NAHL now requires you to play NALH3, pay to play, before they will consider you for the upper league.
why one thinks that schools will care about your path through junior is a little beyond me. Do I want an 18 year old who needs to play jr that I get for 5 years or a guy ready to go I only get for 3? I know which one I’d choose.
that parents decided to send their kids to play na3 (and pay crazy money for it) while not realizing the vast majority will not make it did this to themselves. I don’t think this is going to change hockey, just how many years you may get at your school. What incentive would the colleges have to change it other than for the guys who are ready right away?
only way it ends is by enough parents saying no, and I think we all know the odds of that happening given the fact that some of these leagues where the hockey is just terrible even exist
Edit: to be super clear, I get where you're coming from. I just watched one nephew go play NA3 hoping to make it higher up and he's now playing D3. Have another nephew in a similar spot who has basically said to him its not worth it to go play NA3 and has bene getting pestered continually all spring since their season ended to go to all these various prep and AAA schools.
My sister and her family has basically said they'll do what they can financially to make it work if it's what he wants, but this is also on parents realizing that 99.9% of kids are not D1 athletes no matter how much money they dump in (the hundreds of thousands people spend on playing on these hockey teams, prep academies, etc. is completely batshit insane now imo).
So while I hear you 100% and agree, I don't think that's on college hockey or the prep for existing, it's on the people deciding (often at the "encouragement" of "agents", which don't even get me started) that they should pay for this
only way it ends is by enough parents saying no, and I think we all know the odds of that happening given the fact that some of these leagues where the hockey is just terrible even exist
Bingo. These parents sending their kids to play these lower tier junior hockey leagues (and delaying their college) are a major part of the problem.
I am wondering how the 5-year eligibility proposal will affect the scholarship guarantees. I.e. for players about to enter college who will only get 2-3 years’ of athletic eligibility- are they still guaranteed the scholarship money to finish their degree, even once they can’t compete anymore?
I am wondering how the 5-year eligibility proposal will affect the scholarship guarantees. I.e. for players about to enter college who will only get 2-3 years’ of athletic eligibility- are they still guaranteed the scholarship money to finish their degree, even once they can’t compete anymore?
think this is a massive part of what the NCAA doesn't get with hockey. I would guess the answer will be a very strong no given the amount of associated cost to the University unless it is injury related.
As a parent of a about to graduate senior who played high school hockey I love the 5 year plan. No way a kid who wants to play at a D3 school should ever have to go play juniors for 2-3 years, its absolutely ridiculous. The whole juniors system is broken. NAHL now requires you to play NALH3, pay to play, before they will consider you for the upper league.
why one thinks that schools will care about your path through junior is a little beyond me. Do I want an 18 year old who needs to play jr that I get for 5 years or a guy ready to go I only get for 3? I know which one I’d choose.
that parents decided to send their kids to play na3 (and pay crazy money for it) while not realizing the vast majority will not make it did this to themselves. I don’t think this is going to change hockey, just how many years you may get at your school. What incentive would the colleges have to change it other than for the guys who are ready right away?
only way it ends is by enough parents saying no, and I think we all know the odds of that happening given the fact that some of these leagues where the hockey is just terrible even exist
Edit: to be super clear, I get where you're coming from. I just watched one nephew go play NA3 hoping to make it higher up and he's now playing D3. Have another nephew in a similar spot who has basically said to him its not worth it to go play NA3 and has bene getting pestered continually all spring since their season ended to go to all these various prep and AAA schools.
My sister and her family has basically said they'll do what they can financially to make it work if it's what he wants, but this is also on parents realizing that 99.9% of kids are not D1 athletes no matter how much money they dump in (the hundreds of thousands people spend on playing on these hockey teams, prep academies, etc. is completely batshit insane now imo).
So while I hear you 100% and agree, I don't think that's on college hockey or the prep for existing, it's on the people deciding (often at the "encouragement" of "agents", which don't even get me started) that they should pay for this
The biggest reason my kid is not playing jrs is because he does not want to delay his life. He knows he not a D1/NHL prospect. But could he play at the D3 level... absolutely if a coach would take him. would he play day one, no. My proposal would be to expand the roster some how so these kids could come in, practice, be with the team and still be able to graduate on time. @upnorthkid I appreciate your response more than you know. not arguing with you just voicing my minority opinion. Will it change no, do I want to keep watching my kid play yes! But I am ok with it being done as well.
My proposal would be to expand the roster some how so these kids could come in, practice, be with the team and still be able to graduate on time.
The single biggest issue w.r.t. the # of spots/opportunities to play NCAA D1 hockey is that there’s not nearly enough NCAA D1 hockey programs for the amount of D1-caliber players out there. That’s what has created the glut of players competing for too few spots, resulting in juniors as a holding area. The absurd 26-man roster cap makes it way worse too, when I was at the U not very long ago (class of 2021) the Gophers had ~31 roster players, a bunch of whom (like Noah Weber) literally never played but at least they got to be NCAA hockey players and the Gophs could dress a full lineup any given night.
Sadly the tiny number of NCAA D1 hockey programs is not going to change anytime soon; I can say with ~100% certainty that we are not going to see any P4, brand-name schools adding men’s hockey in the near future. Small D2/D3 schools are suffering the worst of the demographic cliff, so you’re not gonna see tons of them adding hockey; Augustana, Lindenwood etc. are outliers while AIC, Mercyhurst etc. are far more representative of the current state of this type of school.
As a parent of a about to graduate senior who played high school hockey I love the 5 year plan. No way a kid who wants to play at a D3 school should ever have to go play juniors for 2-3 years, its absolutely ridiculous. The whole juniors system is broken. NAHL now requires you to play NALH3, pay to play, before they will consider you for the upper league.
why one thinks that schools will care about your path through junior is a little beyond me. Do I want an 18 year old who needs to play jr that I get for 5 years or a guy ready to go I only get for 3? I know which one I’d choose.
that parents decided to send their kids to play na3 (and pay crazy money for it) while not realizing the vast majority will not make it did this to themselves. I don’t think this is going to change hockey, just how many years you may get at your school. What incentive would the colleges have to change it other than for the guys who are ready right away?
only way it ends is by enough parents saying no, and I think we all know the odds of that happening given the fact that some of these leagues where the hockey is just terrible even exist
Edit: to be super clear, I get where you're coming from. I just watched one nephew go play NA3 hoping to make it higher up and he's now playing D3. Have another nephew in a similar spot who has basically said to him its not worth it to go play NA3 and has bene getting pestered continually all spring since their season ended to go to all these various prep and AAA schools.
My sister and her family has basically said they'll do what they can financially to make it work if it's what he wants, but this is also on parents realizing that 99.9% of kids are not D1 athletes no matter how much money they dump in (the hundreds of thousands people spend on playing on these hockey teams, prep academies, etc. is completely batshit insane now imo).
So while I hear you 100% and agree, I don't think that's on college hockey or the prep for existing, it's on the people deciding (often at the "encouragement" of "agents", which don't even get me started) that they should pay for this
The biggest reason my kid is not playing jrs is because he does not want to delay his life. He knows he not a D1/NHL prospect. But could he play at the D3 level... absolutely if a coach would take him. would he play day one, no. My proposal would be to expand the roster some how so these kids could come in, practice, be with the team and still be able to graduate on time. @upnorthkid I appreciate your response more than you know. not arguing with you just voicing my minority opinion. Will it change no, do I want to keep watching my kid play yes! But I am ok with it being done as well.
oh I don't think you're in the actual minority on this. I think most people would be thrilled if it went back to you came straight out of HS and went to college like the entire rest of the world.
What you're describing is what D3 used to do more (and what ACHA and club are also doing), where kids are not getting scholarships anyway. My nephews MIAC team had 30 kids rostered this year with 28 playing at least 1 game. There is no need for any roster limit there. They're all paying money to go to school. And I'm right there with you, if my kid is/was tracking to play D3, I'd say no on going to any level of junior unless while they do so they're enrolling full time in school for their generals (which is absolutely doable). It stinks many kids have to choose (like your kid is doing), but that also is the reality that we're not all college hockey players and that's ok.
The D1 roster sizes probably need to go up 1-2 players. The rest of leagues there's no reason for any roster limit imo and most of them once you get below D3 don't. The Us ACHA/club/whatever you want to call it had 35 guys on it this year. Think this is part of how you see some guys end up at weird schools in the South is they'd rather keep playing hockey and go play ACHA at UGA instead of Jrs. There are ways to do it
It appears the NCAA age limit would apply to men’s hockey players who graduate high school Spring 2027-onwards. My brain is a bit fried from work, I’ll have to think about all the different college hockey scenarios that may be impacted by this specific implementation.
Note, for pre-2026 HS grads in men’s hockey who have not yet enrolled in college (e.g. Jackson Nevers), the NCAA Eligibility Center gets a ton of discretion as to whether the old or new delayed-enrollment rules for men’s hockey will apply to each individual case. In theory, the Eligibility Center should just rubber stamp all those current juniors players thru with the old hockey rules applying to them, but who knows what NCAA might actually do. I think the Eligibility Center is a bit of a shitshow; remember, they approved all those former ECHL / AHL pros for Bemidji, Arizona State, Providence etc. with literally zero pushback.
let’s go!!!!! Really happy that I’m eating crow on this one.
From reading his scouting reports and looking at the stats, seems like we might be getting a fully-formed LaCombe 2.0 (junior/senior year version) basically? If anyone watches/is familiar with his game please chime in.
if DuPont decides not to play college this year, also probably helps if his former d partner comes and enjoys it. Everyone has been full on that he’s coming to college hockey, but I could also see him waiting given what’s happened with Verhoeff coming in as consensus first d man and now dropping down draft boards
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24131129/gallery_image.JPG "Hey_Sioux_Suck")
