From Twitter:
Freshman Stats for DI College

463 Freshmen Hockey Players
36 - 2000’s - 8% true freshman
97 - 1999’s - 21% one year post
170 - 1998’s - 37% two year post
161 - 1997’s -34% three year post
71% of D1 Freshmen entered as 20 and 21 year olds

This is driven by the coaches. Not the players, not the parents. So, until the rules change, let's not look negatively at kids that choose to repeat, whatever their individual reasons might be. They're going to have to play Juniors until they're 20/21 anyway.

Bad stats. School year's don't align with birth years. If your kid is a Aug-Dec 99 he is a true freshmen not a one year post. Somes goes for all the others so this is skewed. Yes many kids repeat or spend 1 or more years in junior but not to the level this suggests.

Not sure if it's 'bad stats' or parents who continue to defend the old 'hold the kid back for academic reasons' garbage. Yes, so if you held the kid back in the third grade it is the same as holding the kid back in the 9th grade for the stats.

I still think they should put a hard cap on D-III players. A PG year and a year of Juniors to play D-III? The only ones happy about that are the Tier III Junior programs who keep cashing checks. No wonder some pretty good hockey players throw in the towel to go play D-1 lacrosse at the age of 18.

Bad stats mean it's inaccurate and doesn't reflect reality. School year cut offs for kindergarten and first grade are usually July 1 or Aug 1. That means a kid born in the back half of the year are not repeats. A late 99 is a true freshmen. A late 2000 is a HS senior.

Well which is it? 2o or 21? Big difference. Average age is actually 20 which would mean on average kids are delayed one year before entering college. Not a big deal. That is unless your kid is not able to compete with that. Yes there are exceptions but the averages are not that bad.

OW is a true Freshman

There are quite a few in hockey east this year.

Avg senior is HS is 18. College freshmen are 19. System works fine. If your kid is good enough he can play with no or one year of juniors. If your kid is not good enough you will complain to everyone that the system is holding him back.

I don't give a rats ass about the age my son enters college - as long as he's properly prepared to go and do well. Shove that up your tail pipe and smoke it!!!!!!!!!!!

Most kids hate juniors but do it as a necessary evil. To say this system isn't broken is ludicrous. The only people this system works for are junior programs who make money. One extra year is fine. That's what they do is every other sport and it works out pretty well. Look at every Division III roster and it is full of 21 year old freshman. Absolutely ridiculous!

If your kid hates it then you have to question the passion for the game. Juniors (USHL) isn't easy but it's proven to really help kids prepare for college. It's as close to the speed and physicality as you can get. Kids who do well out there do well in college. If they struggle, then they aren't ready. It's that simple. Everyone wants it to be easy for their kid. Sorry but its not. Maybe the system is best at weeding out those who really don't want it all that badly.

USHL is completely different. Most of those kids are Division 1 commits. That being said I don't know ONE kid who loves it. Most of those kids love hockey and are absolutely passionate about the sport and to say they aren't committed is an excuse to justify junior hockey's existence. They love their sport, maybe what they don't love is living in some po dunk town in Nebraska, taking 3 years off of real academics, being treated like property and being 3 years behind your peers in college and then in the workforce. ALL for the privilege of making some team money!! Again a necessary EVIL created for the benefit of the junior system not for the benefit of the player.
Yes, they might be bigger, stronger or more prepared. Hey if that's your reasoning why not keep them till 25. Why doesn't ANY other collegiate sport operate in this way? I am sure every collegiate sport could benefit from bigger stronger kids. This system is completely broken but again the almighty dollar will prevail and there will always be suckers who defend it.

Yahtzee!!!
We have a winner.
Well said.

It's not the systems job to produce the result that you and your kid wants in the timeline that suits you. If it were, then it would be no different than AAA Elite youth hockey where everyone thinks they are elite. If the system doesn't work for you then it simply means your not as good as you think you are and that can be painful to accept.

The system is stupid and still no one can provide reasoning why junior hockey exists and kids have to play juniors. NCAA sports should be for NCAA aged kids not 25 year old men. Graduate high school then go to college. Simple. Instead graduate high school, ship out to the midwest, take no classes and play one or two seasons of hockey...sounds like a great option for a kid. No other NCAA sport is set up like hockey are NCAA football/basketball excel and have ZERO issues with kids coming right in from high school. Dont give me hockey needs kids to develop. By the age of 18 these kids have played probably 1,800 games. The only people that benefit are the junior teams who make money off the situation - its certainly not in any student athletes best interest in the current system thats for sure.

As was already stated, football is a year older on average than hockey but don't let the facts get in the way of your whine.

Two years of redshirting? Not likely. But football makes money, so redshirt scholarships can be paid for. Hockey doesn't have the money. So if there was redshirt for hockey, what would your kid do? Pay full tuition and not play for a year?

No one said their must be junior hockey, but there is. You can complain all you want about its existance but I don't think you'll be affecting any change.

The higher up you go, the more it is about leverage. Don't want to play juniors? Don't. If your good enough and have leverage, you won't need to. If your not good enough, then don't play juniors and I hope you enjoy ACHA.

R u defending status quo to be a D-BAG, or do you like it for economic reasons?
Which program do you own?
The delayed entry does nothing for the kids lives or the family’s sanity.
Definitely helps with the boy to man thing though.
What a surprise.

Question: how did we get here? Is it cyclical, ie. will it revert to normalcy?
No clue here, but interested in your take.

I'm defending it because it works if you use it for what it's intended for and you are realistic about your kids abilities. If your out there for three years then it's your fault. Nothing is prefect. NCAA overall is a highly flawed "cartel" that has a monopoly on so called "amateur" sports for the sole purpose of making billions on the back of unpaid labor. We are lucky they even have hockey because it's a money loser but they prop it up other sports including womens sports to avoid lawsuits. So where do you want to take this now, how do we dismantle the NCAA?

Junior hockey fills a void. HS hockey cannot prepair HS kids for college hockey. The gap in level of play is too great. Use it for what it's intended for and it works but if you go out there and then NCAA keeps pushing you out then you have to have the sense to move on because if you don't have leverage, they will leverage you which is a good life lesson.

You want the NCAA to put an age limit in? That's in no one's interest but yours but ok, good luck waiting for that to happen.

Which would make the average age of a D1 hockey team the same as it is today.

CM HS has a player born in 99'
Pope Francis HS has 6 kids born in 00'

Kids are doing the 'junior' and prep thing and the large majority at every level including ACHA Club ar 20-21 year old freshman. Such a waste. It is in fact the only NCAA sport that encourages (or is doing nothing to stop it) kids to enter college 2-3 years after HS. Name another sport that does it? The 'true' freshman is definitely an anomoly. 'Junior' programs sit back, laugh, and rake in the money while they place kids at ACHA U Tampa.

College football avg age is older than hockey by about a year.

Hockey is the only sport that has 21-year-old freshmen and not surprisingly, a lower graduation rate than football and basketball. I wonder if those two are related.:thinking_face:

Somone call a wambulance. The HS hockey parents club is here to protest the fact that there is no D1 hockey participation slot for their bender. All sports have older kids. Football is at least a year older than hockey and yes, hockey has one of the highest grad rates but don't let facts get in the way of your whine's. Just because there isn't a junior football league doesn't mean they don't repeat, do PG, junior college and redshirt. That's what makes USHL so good is you have a place where you know your kid will develop. So what if he doesn't love it. My kid loved the hockey. Billet was OK. Travel sucked. Missed home a lot but he wouldn't trade it knowing what it did for him. Doesnt' get easier in college. Ask all the kids who did everything they could to getto D1 and then they don't play. They have the same comittments. Practice, lifts, film travel. But they don't play. Think they love it? Whomever promised your kid a place to play at every age level where he will love it lied to you. Or maybe that was you lying to your kid.

The problem isn’t at the junior level. That’s the only level that works. It’s the youth level that’s the problem. Parents around here are conditioned to a system where there are AAA elite teams on every street corner and all they have to do is write a check. Junior hockey is the only level where there is real Tier 1-2-3 and it’s merit based. You can’t buy your kid a spot on a tier 1 team.

Not a surprise that you missed the point. Yes the system is set up a certain way and players and their families know that in order to play at the higher level you will need to play juniors. Again.. Coaches demand it and junior teams are set up as businesses to make money. Stop with the commitment BS.. Obviously the best kids shake out whether they were all starting at 19 or 21 and obviously the kids who are the most committed both mentally and physically will do whatever is needed in order to continue to play in college. That being said IT IS STILL A BROKEN SYSTEM.. it is set up to work for the junior hockey business and it gets sold to sucker parents as DEVELOPMENT..You wouldn't need to develop 3 extra years if everyone started as 19 years olds.. As stated numerous times a necessary evil.. but again the kool aid people will keep defending it and nothing will change! Sorry that concept is so complicated!

Everyone reaches the point where your told your not good enough anymore. For most that's HS. Some college. Even fewer at the pro level. Sorry your kid has reached that point. It's not the systems fault. There is no "system" that got together some time ago to conspire against you in order to make junior hockey teams money. Who is this "system" anyway? College coaches? Ok and so why would they do this? Do they profit? Do they even know who the owners are? Do you really think they all got together to conspire to help junior team owners and prop up this level of hockey?

They want better players. In many cases that means older, stronger, faster and Juniors fills that need. And no I'm not talking about all juniors. There is a lot of tier 3 crap out there. I'm talking about the sanctioned leagues which really is "the system". NCAA wants to be a feeder for pro hockey. They want to exploit their advantage over major junior by giving players more time to develop. Taking kids right out of HS doesn't work. HS kids are not ready as you can see even now when kids go right from hs to D1. For every disgruntled parent whose kid is washing out there are some that this "system" saved. Late bloomers physicially who hit their peak at 21-24 and then went to the NHL. It's those kids who the "system" wants to support. It designed to be exclusive, not inclusive.

I'm not an apologist for the system you despise but I appreciate what they are doing. And by the fact that those it is weeding out are mad about it means they are on the right track.

The junior hockey "system" is only broken if you don't like the "system." It's working fine for us.

My oldest is graduating this year. His college acceptances and academic scholarship money is rolling in. Like many of his non-athlete friends, he is looking forward to a gap year. But, instead of backpacking Europe or joining the Peace Corps, he is looking forward to being able to focus just on hockey for a year. After one year, we will re-evaluate whether he has the college opportunity he was looking for, or if a second year of Junior (assumed to be at the next rung on the ladder) will benefit him further.

And, I am 100% fine with that. He has been balancing academics and hockey since 4th grade. I can still remember him having to do homework at NESC when he was 10 and at Bertucci's in Andover when he was 13 to get it all done. I remember being in Lake Placid when he was 12 and explaining to him that he couldn't join his teammates to go watch ski jumping because he had a lab report to write. He is much better at time management than any of his peers, and way better than I was at his age. He's had no choice. That's a lot of pressure on a teenager, on top of managing his social interactions, fulfilling his commitments at home, working part-time in the summer, community service, etc etc.

But, we are in control. Not the schools, not the Junior teams. Playing college hockey is not an entitlement. It has to be earned. It requires sacrifice. He can always choose to get off the treadmill. College is paid for. By me, by our putting money aside, the way it should be. My kids' attending college isn't dependent on their getting a D-I athletic scholarship. And, in fact, his academic scholarships are averaging more than athletes get already. this is the point most hockey parents are clueless about.

Scholarship athletes are professional, revenue producing assets. Not amateur student athletes. If you aren't familiar with O'Bannon v. NCAA, read about it.

If he wants to be a 20 year old Freshman, I am 100% supportive. It is his choice, no one else's.

So typical of anyone on this board with whom you disagree it comes down to "your kid isn't good enough". Well sorry to disappoint you my kid was good enough and played that level and continues to play in college. He was also very tough mentally and physically. Obviously being a successful player is multi tiered. It is NOT just about talent. It is talent combined with mental toughness, competitiveness, drive, passion, emotional stability, positive attitude and a host of other intangibles. They get weeded out at almost all levels in college because they either rise or fall to the pressure athletically or academically.
The majority of Division 1 players will not be playing in the NHL but now according to you that is the reason to set up the junior system... and it is a system--(you know a set of things working together or a set of principles according to which something is done) so that it can be a feeder program to the NHL. Even if that might produce results for some of the athletes the problem is it is trickling down to Division 3 hockey where the majority of rosters are littered with age outs.
Again people like you will never see it logically because you own all of your kids successes and put down others or probably benefit financially.
Either way there is NO doubt that this system is broken for the vast majority of college hockey players. It is really too bad big egos and big money will get in the way of a fix.

So still not sure then what your beef is. You say juniors is necessary but at the same time it's broken, why? Because people make money? Because it's merit based? You said the system conspires to make profits for junior owners but provide no facts to prove that out. Now you shift to state that it's the unintened consequence of impacting D3 but again, why is that a bad thing? Kids pursuing D1 and don't make it will logically jump to D3 and push other kids out. So what? It's competition. If you don't want to compete for a spot, then don't.

I don't own my kids successes and I don't make my money off hockey. I have one kid playing D1, one playing college club and one stopped playing after HS. The higher up you go the tougher the competition. I appreciate it for what it is and don't expect the system to coddle to anyone, even my kids.

It is understandable to a certain degree to go through the pain of junior hockey if your ability and interest is to play D-1 hockey or beyond and you are able to play in a league that doesn't charge. But to delay your life a couple years, pay through the nose just to hopefully play D-3 hockey you need to get the kid's head examined. Most hockey kids who are two or three sport athletes would be wise to perhaps choose another sport.

Just keeping the dream alive. All that time spent just so you can play at some crappy rink in front of 65 'fans' is a colossal waste of everyone's time & money.

Love one of the local programs which boasts each of their Junior players 'makes a college team' - without saying that includes ACHA / Club Hockey. Look, if you're a D-1 high school player who gets ice time and are willing to do (God forbid) 2 years of Junior hockey you can play D-3 hockey. And if you are a D-1 high school player who gets ice time you can play on a Club Team without wasting a minute of anyone's time.

DPeter Pan needs to shed his wings!

I think what gets parents upset and leads to the "system is broken" is the plethora of Tier-III programs in New England and the let down at 21 when their players moves onto to a club program or beer league. Right or wrong, Tier-III programs are selling a dream to the players & parents that almost never materializes and rather than looking in the mirror, they blame a "broken" system.

The way I see it, colleges need money to field teams, boosters want success on the ice and to see players matriculate to professional hockey, NHL loves the current system because they don't need to project what a player will become, they are already getting a fairly mature player at 23-25 years old. In addition to the less risk associated with signings, because these players are entering the league older, the teams are getting most of their prime career years on the cheap.

If the money being generated by the system helps keep college teams viable and maybe even adds a few more teams, I'm all for it.

BTW, since the majority of kids heading to D-1 are coming from the USHL and NTDP, who exactly is getting rich off the system? The only folks making real bank off the current system are the Tier-III programs and again, look in the mirror for who to blame on that. That's not to say that USHL owners aren't turning a profit but it's coming primarily from ticket sales and ad revenue not the parents check book.

Bingo. If your paying for the crap bag stuff around here thinking its going to lead to D3 then you only have yourself to blame, not the owners.

Oh I get it now.. So the NHL likes the SYSTEM.. Statistically less than 30% of Division 1 players ever make the NHL. Is the NHL funding these colleges or coaches?? Nope but they let the D1 kids hang onto their dream a little longer with promises of potential NHL spots. The bigger question which no one wants to tackle is if this is such a great process then why do NONE of the other NCAA sports operate in this way. I don't expect a thoughtful analysis. I am sure someone will bring up a 27 year old rugby player as a comparison.

Wow your a special kind of stupid. Either that or a flaming liberal where everyone should get everything their are promised or everyone should be equal.

Statistically less than 30% play in the NHL is selling a dream? If it's 30% that's awesome if true. No one promised my kid he's going to the NHL by playing D1. If he does, great. If not, he played college hockey four years and got a degree. So playing D1 hockey is nothing more than hanging on to an NHL dream? Like I said, your a special kind of stupid.

I don't have a D1 kid because I can't see the insanity of the this process???? Really, as I said on a previous post can't fix stupid.. D

You cant have a D1 kid cause you don't understand the process. So much of what you said is BS and anyone who has kids who have gone through it know your full of it.

Nope.. wrong again!! Understand the Process but don't agree with the process.. what is so hard to understand??
Honestly?? I really don't get why anyone who has gone through this when honestly looking at the big picture would continue to defend it. That leads me to believe maybe It is YOU who doesn't really get it.

But Paul, your kid is really good.

I also think the system is broken from a US perspective and in comparing the sport to other sports but much of what is 'wrong' is fueling a healthy junior system in Canada & in the Midwest. These teams are the closest kids will get to playing the sport professionally and these teams, leagues and towns are loved elsewhere. This is part of the 'system' that needs repair but there is a lot that will forever favor 21 year old hockey freshmen because the healthy junior leagues eat it up.

You know Canadian junior has nothing to do with your NCAA system, right? Kids lose eligibility? You do know that don’t you?

Yes obviously, but the system of a robust junior league that feeds pro hockey is alive north of the boarder.

and thats relevant to this discussion how? another dope

Being the idiot bully you try to be, shouldn’t you be Tweeting incoherent stuff like your bully hero Comrade Trump?

The point I think was that there is a deeply rooted, profitable junior system and keeps kids until they’re 20. Hope Bully-boy gets it

Wow, if your stupid that disqualifies you from claiming your being bullied. Major Junior has nothig to do with NCAA. If you choose Major Junior, you are making a conscious decision to not play college hockey. It all but disqualifies you from NCAA unless your willing to pay a significant price. So the system your keep referring to cannot by definition include Canadian Junior.

Yes the CHA has a long standing position in Canadian hockey. It's a much bigger and much more lucritive than the USHL. But so what? Has nothing to do with this topic.

Thanks for joining the discussion though.

" Major Junior has nothig (sic) to do with NCAA "

I'll go slower for you. See the hockey farm system has a long history and very deep roots. Most adults in the room will say these deep roots can be trace back to their origins to.....Canada! And you will see there is money involved in this farm system both in Canada and....(drum roll please) The US of A !!!! See this old system, for those of you new to this sport, was built many years ago and really despite the Canadian Major Juniors' leagues insisting they support college educations by giving their players 'free tuition' to Canadian schools they really don't care. Check out how much it costs for a Canadian to go to college and check out how many players take the leagues up on their offer and you'll see it's not a big percentage. So you see this is the farm system for pro hockey, show-up, stay until you're 20, fill the stands, and either turn pro or a college will take you.

Guess what developed in the US of A? No really, guess. Another drum roll! A system that is well funded for Tier 1 Juniors of "Show-up, stay until you're 20, fill the stands, and either turn pro or a college will take you."

Now the challenged in the room will say, "Hold on a minute! But they're Canucks and I'm a God Fearing, MAGA hat wearing, US Vet, stand for the national anthem American GOT-Darn-IT!!! How on earth did all this happen in my country?" Welllllll, look to the north, look to history, look to where the bread is getting buttered, look who helps to fund this well developed farm system and then ask yourself - Does Major Junior has nothig (sic) to do with the NCAA?

O.K., you're dismissed.

It's the NCAA. They exist to support colleges, not student athletes. They don't care about your kid. They will never change or implement a rule simply because it's in the best interest of the students.

They are a business that is about growing revenues for themselves and their members. If they could drop all sports but football and basketball they would but they can't. The other sports help with the smokescreen that they are really about amateur collegiate athletics and it keeps them clear of Title IX lawsuits.

They count and a transient workforce that is in their system for short periods of time and so the interest of unionizing and collective bargaining never gets any traction. See Northwestern football lawsuit. Whenever anything gets any traction they throw some crumbs to the workers (stipends) to silence them and then they are gone. The trouble-makers graduate and move on. A new workforce comes in and any movement has to start all over again.

Hockey is very costly but important to the schools who have a history with it. Some schools attract enough attendance to make some money but many do not. They make money on alumni. When alumni come back to campus with checkbooks in hand there needs to be things going on. Athletics are part of it. It’s well documented that small schools that dropped football to save money lost even more because alumni stopped coming back to campus. Hockey in many of these schools has a trickle down because students (full paying non athletes) want to go to schools with things going on. Drop sports and overall the school becomes less attractive to the general student body that pays the bills.

So to maximize revenue (direct and indirect) they need a product that is interesting. They set out on a path to make NCAA a feeder for NHL. Come sure future NHL players is the draw. So to pull kids from other leagues namely the CHL, they exploit the age limit issue of the CHL. The appeal if give yourself more time to develop. Why age out at 20 and have to turn pro if you not ready. They are also going hard after Euro’s. 35% of D1 players are now imports.

So the system is working and working beautifully for what it’s focused on achieving. NCAA players in the NHL is at an all time high and growing. They are televising more NCAA games in Canada. CHL is reeling a bit from labor lawsuits, tax schemes from owners, sketchy promises of tuition payments etc. So if you’re a parent of a Canadian kid who used to think CHL was the only path to the NHL, it’s no longer the case.

So the system isn’t going to change. It’s working well for those that its designed to work for. Your kid is not the priority. You work the system as best you can or tap out. If you tap out, there is another to take your place.

Looks like the idiot bully got owned. Major Junior has nothig ! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: :kissing_smiling_eyes: :stuck_out_tongue:

True that. The newer question is with so many kids getting just partial scholarship, why would a Canadian kid even choose to come to the states (unless it was a top 20 or so U.S. school) to pay what could be $2,000 - $6,000 per year in Canada?

Dude, put down the keyboard. We've all had enough of you being able to type but unable to read.

you forgot your witty emoji's

If you capped the age of incoming hockey freshman at a one year gap post graduate all that would happen is the junior leagues would go younger. Instead of heading off to the USHL at 18 or 19 you would see players heading off to the league at 16 and 17. It is hard for a kid that age to live away from home. I'd prefer they be 18 when they do it. Play hockey, take a college credit class or two while you do it, and take some time to mature. Truth is, hockey or not, I'm not sure I want to send a kid straight to college right out of high school these days anyway. Look at the first year college drop out rate. A kid will be much more prepared, hockey or not, after spending a year or two in juniors.

All the hopes and dreams of college hockey within one year of graduating HS is never going to happen.


www.grandforksherald.com/sports/hockey/4569903-unds-recent-commits-give-window-recruiting-strategy