Puck Daddy - NHL

There was a very interesting collegiate sports article on ESPN.com yesterday about a proposed eligibility rules change by Michael Rogers, chair of the NCAA Division I Amateurism Cabinet, to allow coaches to recruit athletes from professional teams.

Most interesting? That NCAA hockey has "balked at the proposal, which will be amended to exempt that sport."

Basically, the rule change would allow athletes who play alongside a professional teammate in a given sport -- if those athletes do not take what's considered a salary -- from jeopardizing their NCAA eligibility for doing so. The current rules affect plenty of foreign athletes in sports like volleyball and basketball, who play on sponsored club teams with salaried teammates while U.S. athletes are playing high-school sports.

From ESPN:

Of the 490 incoming athletes penalized for amateurism violations last year, 434 were foreign students, according to the NCAA. Punishments range from being forced to sit out games to, more rarely, permanent ineligibility.

Rogers claims the rule change would "reduce the size of our headaches" for the NCAA in investigating an athlete's eligibility by tracking down spotty records or the status of former teammates. The opposition worries that "professionalized" players have an unfair advantage, and that U.S. athletes could be left behind:

"There are a certain number of coaches who say only Americans should get these scholarships," said Bill Walton, head volleyball coach at the University of Houston. "We hear that from some parents, too. They've been paying $6,000 to $10,000 a year for volleyball [training], and feel like their kid should get that scholarship."

At first glance, we figured NCAA hockey coaches and conferences were attempting to quell any influx of European quasi-professionals into their ranks; a bunch of prospects like Tampa Bay Lightning defenseman Victor Hedman(notes), who was playing with the pros as early as 17.

But according to the NCAA, they opted out of this proposal for another reason: Out of concern for Canadian Major Junior hockey.

From the NCAA:

The men's ice hockey community - including USA Hockey, the coaches association and several conferences - believed that Proposal No. 2009-22 could negatively affect the sport at the NCAA level. They believe that allowing men's ice hockey student-athletes who participate on teams with paid teammates would open the door to participate in Major Junior A hockey, which current rules prohibit. Major Junior A is a competitive league overseen by the Canadian Hockey League, generally recognized as a professional league for players between 16 and 20 years old.

Proposal No. 2009-22 targets what some have called "vicarious professionalism," a circumstance that professionalizes prospects who participate on teams with professional athletes, even if the prospects are not paid more than actual and necessary expenses.

The ice hockey community believes that prospects who wish to participate in NCAA hockey would choose to participate in Major Junior A hockey before coming to college, and the recruit could be influenced to take action that could jeopardize his eligibility at the NCAA level (taking more than actual and necessary expenses, signing with an agent or signing a professional contract that provides more than actual and necessary expenses). Additionally, time demands of participation in the Major Junior A hockey league could hurt a recruit's academic performance.

Yeah, academics. Whatever.

Seriously, though, it sounds like a combination of trying to save potential student-athletes from temptation and, in the end, the NCAA from itself.

Opening up the floodgates for "vicarious professionals" would mean increasing the chances that Major Junior A players could be lured to the NCAA ... but it also would increase the chances that the CHL would unleash the fury on college hockey in the U.S., enticing the NCAA's potential talent to play for the Canadian league instead.

Better to keep the status quo for hockey, we suppose. But we heartily support the recruitment of semi-pro European babes for college volleyball teams ...

Thanks to Ryan Lambert for some insight on this; make sure to read his NCAA column here on Puck Daddy every Friday.

digg delicious
more

19 Comments

Post a Comment
  1. lionheart1740
    1. Posted by lionheart1740 Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:00 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Saw the piece on E:60 yesterday and those european volleyball players were hot.
  2. mcnultysrevenge
    2. Posted by mcnultysrevenge Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:02 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I can't imagine a lot of players, all things being equal, choosing to play in the CHL over the NCAA. I know CHL teams pay for their players' education after they leave the team, but the kids still have to get into whatever school. But with a slot on an NCAA team, you're guaranteed a paid-for education, often at one of the best schools in the world (Harvard? Cornell?). And since plenty of players are making the jump directly from the NCAA to the NHL these days, the stigma of playing college hockey isn't nearly as strong.
  3. Kohzlick
    3. Posted by Kohzlick Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:09 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I'm pro-bewbies all the way....wait, what were we talking about??
  4. Andy
    4. Posted by Andy Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:33 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    But they do choose to play in the CHL. The stigma is less that it used to be certainly, but there's still the issues of playing far fewer games and with a markedly different rule set, which contribute to the idea of only late bloomers playing NCAA hockey. Couple that with the fact that kids younger than 18 can be playing major junior and you can see why the NCAA has never particularly wished to encourage kids to play major junior.
  5. fuse
    5. Posted by fuse Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:34 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    cev.lu , just googled it! Go beach volleyball, womens. They are some hotty's!!! Oh, whatever about that NCAA thing.
  6. Justin K
    6. Posted by Justin K Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:39 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Oh, I actually get to talk about the sport I play! Many years back, I chose to pick up volleyball because hockey was too expensive for my family. Today, I'm studying in Europe and have been to a number of volleyball matches. I think the NCAA is right in making this rule - why penalize European and other foreign players before they could ever imagine that they are going to an American University. "Pro" level volleyball here is not necessarily as strong as NCAA volleyball. Pro is such a spotty word because you can make next to nothing playing in a league that an American club high school team could dominate but it's considered pro. It's a rule that makes sense for volleyball.
    Hockey having an opt-out also makes sense. I'd imagine that most potential foreign hockey players are Canadian. These players have a much better idea that they might be going to study in an American university and their leagues are more serious and likely more competitive. Furthermore, records are much better kept than in places like Serbia and therefore easier to track, taking less NCAA resources.
    Probably my longest comment ever, so thanks to those that read it.
  7. Kohzlick
    7. Posted by Kohzlick Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:49 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Justin K,
    I started reading your something to do with volleyball and family...i got bored and skipped over to the end where you said, "Probably my longest comment ever..." and boy was I glad that I did.
  8. Fox
    8. Posted by Fox Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:48 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    "But with a slot on an NCAA team, you're guaranteed a paid-for education, often at one of the best schools in the world (Harvard? Cornell?)."
    Neither Harvard nor real Cornell give scholarships for hockey. Couldn't tell you about SUNY-Cornell, but if those students are eligible for athletics, then I suppose the price difference would seem almost as good to a NY resident.
  9. hockeymaster4789
    9. Posted by hockeymaster4789 Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:02 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    If you're serious about hockey, you should play in the CHL. If you need the time to develop/serious about non-hockey life, you should play in the NCAA. Simple as that.
  10. habs1rule
    10. Posted by habs1rule Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:07 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    My question is this..Because the Major Juniors have a somewhat better reputation than the college ranks, fair or unfair..If a player is a top five prospect in the draft, doesnt he make more money than if he came out of college..
  11. John O
    11. Posted by John O Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:55 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Maybe instead of doing this on a whole NCAA level, the rule should be decided by the governing body of each NCAA recognized sport. So maybe NCAA hockey may voluntarily not allow "professionals" ro play, but NCAA basketball and football may be ok with it.
    Seems like one of those things that should be looked at more "micro-economic" than "macro-economic" level.
  12. david
    12. Posted by david Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:35 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    A hockey player can be drafted at any time. If he is playing NCAA he can be drafted and continue playing college as long as he has not signed a contract with his pro team, has an agent, and is still academically eligable. The pro team just holds his rights and he is not able to sign with any other team once he's graduated or decides to forfeit his remaining college years. If a player is in the CHL he can be drafted and sign a contract with his NHL team at any time but his contract does not start until he plays for his pro team(including the pros farm team). The pro team can send him to play at his Major Jr team up till he's 21 since CHL is ages 18-20. But all hockey teams (i believe in their CBA) offer 3 year entry level contracts so you will not earn more money one way or the other. (see players such as Crosby/Malkin/Ovechkin/Tavares) all having 3 year entry contracts that top out at 1 million with performance bonuses. After their 3 years were up the first 3 signed major long term deals with their teams.
  13. dylan b
    13. Posted by dylan b Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:59 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    "Couple that with the fact that kids younger than 18 can be playing major junior and you can see why the NCAA has never particularly wished to encourage kids to play major junior."
    That is the main reason why most top Canadian kids play in the CHL, showing you can hang with players 18-20 when you are 15 and 16 impresses scouts more so then an 18 year old playing against 20-24 year olds.
  14. mjhst67
    14. Posted by mjhst67 Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:56 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    6. Posted by Justin K Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:39 pm EDT *****************
    best post i ever read,
  15. trufflepiggy
    15. Posted by trufflepiggy Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:26 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    This would be a win-win for both the CHL and the NCAA. Young hockey players should play against the best competition available. At the agae os 16 and 17, there is no better competition than CHL. The NCAA retards player development by forcing players wanting to receive scollarships to play at a lower level (and not develope as quickly). Teams in the CHL pay one year of University for each year played. This would stop tallented players from receiving schollarshiops then leaving to go pro (they would have been playing CHL). Scholarships payed by CHL teams could be used at NCAA schools (saves a lot of money for the schools), and would give undrafted players a place to develope (or at least get an education). How many really good players have not had this secondary opportunity to develope. Above all it would be good for the game. It would further improve the tallent pool in the CHL, and well............. NCAA hockey could be MUCH better (wuold not loose players to CHL or Pro) as the tallent pool would deepen.
    Just my two cents, but I am RIGHT
  16. Dirac
    16. Posted by Dirac Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:12 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Please do not confuse this with a chance at offering kids an education. The NCAA wants talented athletes and that is it. Oh, and they get to go to school (at least until a pro club tells them they are ready to jump, at which point they will leave school).
    The NCAA is a joke anyways. It should be disbanded and each sport should form its own governing body. The needs of student athletes in fencing ARE NOT the same as those in football or basketball and to apply the exact same rules across the board is ridiculous.
    I must question how genuine anyone is here who posts how these athletes should go to colleges in the U.S. Most of the time it would seem for the benefit of the schools and NOT the athlete. It kills me when people cry about athletes leaving their schools early to go pro...well, duh. I went to college to learn to make a living. If I was offered a chance to do something where the minimum wage was 10x what I would earn at graduation, you can bet I would have left. You can always go to school and learn. The body of an athlete has a very finite shelf life and if it can be used the the benefit of the that athlete's wallet, good for him/her.
  17. Big Sexy Apples
    17. Posted by Big Sexy Apples Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:39 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    As a former player, I can see why either route would be beneficial to any player depending on his specific situation. For the writer to say "Yeah, academics, whatever" is insulting and is a better indicator of his education rather than that of the hockey community. Not to say hockey is not without its fair percentage of idiots but, for him to say that hockey is like basketball or football the way players major in musical cultures or underwater basket weaving is incredibly obtuse. Ivy league schools along with excellent public schools like Michigan or UNH have competitive D1 programs while maintaining quality student athletes that graduate and are almost never arrested. Even the guys from Major "A" are typically well rounded. CHL has far more pros but, players are more mature physically and mentally after leaving 4 years of school and percentage wise spend less time in the minors. Greg Wyshynski apparently doesn't know anything about amature hockey. Douche!
  18. Professor Farnsworth
    18. Posted by Professor Farnsworth Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:40 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Yea i must agree, the "yeah, academics, whatever." quip, reflects very poorly on yourself wysh.
  19. TellinThaTruth
    19. Posted by TellinThaTruth Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:14 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    They had to say no. Why would hockey be exempted while football and basketball players have to be 'armature'? That would be a double standard that they dont want.

Puck Daddy

Add to My Yahoo! RSS

Greg Wyshynski

Puck Daddy is an NHL blog edited by Greg Wyshynski. Email him, and follow him on Twitter.

Teams

Customize to follow news and rumors on your favorite teams. [ Sign in ]

Related Photo Gallery

Y! Sports Blogs

Puck Daddy Recent Readers

Watch Live Hockey Online with GameCenter Live™