NCRHA BOD Meeting - Eligibility Changes?

[MBurke]

SECRHL has been notified and will take care of it.

We're all on the way back from Colorado following our annual NCRHA Board of Directors meeting.

Lots of exciting new developments to report - expect a press release in the coming days outlining what took place at the meeting.

Some highlights:
- The first change in over ten years to college roller hockey's divisional structure and guidelines, including a better definition of the differences between divisions
- Planning for interregional "showdown" events between neighboring regions
- Agreement by all regions to maintain minimum standards of presence for events (such as posted schedules, banners, etc.)
- New development initiatives to make it easier for new teams and players to get information about joining the NCRHA

[JLambertUMSL]

SECRHL has been notified and will take care of it.

We're all on the way back from Colorado following our annual NCRHA Board of Directors meeting.

Lots of exciting new developments to report - expect a press release in the coming days outlining what took place at the meeting.

Some highlights:
- The first change in over ten years to college roller hockey's divisional structure and guidelines, including a better definition of the differences between divisions
- Planning for interregional "showdown" events between neighboring regions
- Agreement by all regions to maintain minimum standards of presence for events (such as posted schedules, banners, etc.)
- New development initiatives to make it easier for new teams and players to get information about joining the NCRHA

Awesome. I'm pumped to hear what was discussed and to find out what decisions were made.

I heard they might be discussing making the eligibility max six years instead of five. Did that happen?

[jsp047]

I heard they might be discussing making the eligibility max six years instead of five. Did that happen?
Unless the six years of eligibility would be reserved only for students in graduate school, I don't think this should happen. Five years is more than enough time. It should be about being able to play roller hockey while in college....not "kind of" going to college while playing roller hockey. No one should be able to play in the NCRHA for six years as an undergraduate.

[MBurke]

Unless the six years of eligibility would be reserved only for students in graduate school, I don't think this should happen. Five years is more than enough time. It should be about being able to play roller hockey while in college....not "kind of" going to college while playing roller hockey. No one should be able to play in the NCRHA for six years as an undergraduate.

NO change made to eligibility at this time, though the proposal came up. It was tabled and given to our newly-formed planning committee to do a bit of analysis and figure out possible wording of a proposal to vote on. Another proposal was a 5+2 plan, where you're allowed a max of 5 years of undergrad and 2 years grad. As an example, if you finished your Bachelor's in 4 years, you'd have 2 years of grad remaining. All of this can get very complex in the wording, so it was given to the committee to flesh out some more complete proposals that can be considered.

At this time my impression is that we will not extend the eligibility. I'm torn on the issue - 5 years has become standard-issue time to graduate at almost every university in the country. In many places it's impossible to graduate in 4 years, and transferring or changing a major really puts you in a position where 5-6 years is realistic, even if you're doing well and going full-time.

[JLambertUMSL]

NO change made to eligibility at this time, though the proposal came up. It was tabled and given to our newly-formed planning committee to do a bit of analysis and figure out possible wording of a proposal to vote on. Another proposal was a 5+2 plan, where you're allowed a max of 5 years of undergrad and 2 years grad. As an example, if you finished your Bachelor's in 4 years, you'd have 2 years of grad remaining. All of this can get very complex in the wording, so it was given to the committee to flesh out some more complete proposals that can be considered.

At this time my impression is that we will not extend the eligibility. I'm torn on the issue - 5 years has become standard-issue time to graduate at almost every university in the country. In many places it's impossible to graduate in 4 years, and transferring or changing a major really puts you in a position where 5-6 years is realistic, even if you're doing well and going full-time.

I'm glad no changes have been made.

Regardless of how long it takes to get a degree, five is enough IMO.

[NYR1199]

I'm glad no changes have been made.

Regardless of how long it takes to get a degree, five is enough IMO.

I agree, 5 max for eligiblity plus give extra if your a grad student.

[CUDangled]

I think min. credits per semester should be a bigger concern than total years played. I am not saying that the year limit should be removed...but as Mike said, it is completely logical that a FULL TIME student may spend 5-6 years to graduate. Especially with internships, possible change of major, etc. Dual majors are also becoming more and more popular.

I think we all agree that we don't want people going to school just to play in the league, but how many people would really pay to go to school FULL TIME just to play inline?

What ever the numbers are...that can be another discussion, I would just like to see the focus more on credits that semester rather than total years.

[RichardGraham]

Hi Folks,

There was no inline hockey in college when I went to school.

"Seven years of college, down the drain." ;)

[InlineMBA]

NO change made to eligibility at this time, though the proposal came up. It was tabled and given to our newly-formed planning committee to do a bit of analysis and figure out possible wording of a proposal to vote on. Another proposal was a 5+2 plan, where you're allowed a max of 5 years of undergrad and 2 years grad. As an example, if you finished your Bachelor's in 4 years, you'd have 2 years of grad remaining. All of this can get very complex in the wording, so it was given to the committee to flesh out some more complete proposals that can be considered.

At this time my impression is that we will not extend the eligibility. I'm torn on the issue - 5 years has become standard-issue time to graduate at almost every university in the country. In many places it's impossible to graduate in 4 years, and transferring or changing a major really puts you in a position where 5-6 years is realistic, even if you're doing well and going full-time.

5-6 years is realistic? My son is a dead man if it takes him 6 years to get his undergraduate degree. BTW, the money machine stops at 4 years. It took me three years of nights and weekends to complete my MBA. He can do 120 credits in 4 years. Then we'll see how much money is in the budget for Graduate school. 5 years of club Roller Hockey is more than his fair share.

Steve Inge - ROXBURY 8

[MBurke]

Good luck! I know it's physically impossible at some universities now to graduate in four years, with the way prerequisites work and when courses are offered (you need Y course to be completed to take Z course, but Y course isn't offered until next year). Many schools have gotten very good at building these things in and milking an extra semester or two of tuition, and that's without even taking into account transfer students or those changing majors midstream.

I earned about 165 credits in four years and still needed an extra semester to graduate - I never once failed or had to retake a course, and graduated with honors. Taking extra time doesn't mean you've done anything wrong.

That doesn't mean I advocate over five years of CRH eligibility, but it's entirely reasonable to be in school that long.

[RustyPipes27]

5-6 years is realistic? My son is a dead man if it takes him 6 years to get his undergraduate degree. BTW, the money machine stops at 4 years. It took me three years of nights and weekends to complete my MBA. He can do 120 credits in 4 years. Then we'll see how much money is in the budget for Graduate school. 5 years of club Roller Hockey is more than his fair share.

Steve Inge - ROXBURY 8

I guess Mike hasn't told you yet that he switched his major to dance... you better sit him down for a chat.

[jsp047]

so it may take more than 5 years to graduate.....ok......you should still only get 5 years max to play in the league. Allowing more than that only caters to the select few who attend college only to play roller hockey. Once you've had your 4 or 5 years, move on.

[WCRHL]

Hi Folks,

There was no inline hockey in college when I went to school.

"Seven years of college, down the drain." ;)

They had colleges way back then???

Gotcha!

[RichardGraham]

Hi Brennan,

I'm writing this slowly because I know you can't read fast. ;)

No. It was actually called the School of Hard Knocks. I had to walk miles through the snow to get to class, and I went to San Diego State. We studied so hard that I don't believe we ever made it to Number One on Playboy's list of party schools. We had to pay at least $100 per semester for a full load of classes, and I remember that rent was at LEAST another $100 a month. You young whippersnappers today have it easy....

[CUDangled]

so it may take more than 5 years to graduate.....ok......you should still only get 5 years max to play in the league. Allowing more than that only caters to the select few who attend college only to play roller hockey. Once you've had your 4 or 5 years, move on.

Are their really people out there that want to play college inline bad enough to take 12 credits per semester (and maintain decent enough grades not to get kicked out) solely to play roller hockey? I REALLY doubt it.

Maybe roller hockey motivates someone to go to college, rather than simply a desire to better themselves...but if that is the case, is it really a bad thing?

[CUDangled]

5-6 years is realistic? My son is a dead man if it takes him 6 years to get his undergraduate degree. BTW, the money machine stops at 4 years. It took me three years of nights and weekends to complete my MBA. He can do 120 credits in 4 years. Then we'll see how much money is in the budget for Graduate school. 5 years of club Roller Hockey is more than his fair share.

Steve Inge - ROXBURY 8

All joking aside, to be fair to your son, the days of a "4 year college" only taking four years are just about over. Especially with certain majors. I had to do three semesters of internships and I could only do ONE of those during the summer. Now you have to factor in the prerequisite issue that Mike touched on and the fact that many of your core classes are only offered during Fall or Spring semester. This can easily add a semester or two to your time in college.

I have known people graduate with honors, taking moderate to "heavy" credit loads, not repeat a class, not change majors, take summer courses and still take 5+ years to graduate. Also, some majors require more than 120 credits to graduate now...so that again adds some time.

All this is assuming that you have been lucky enough to get your college funded somehow (parents, grants, loans, military) and don't have to work your way through college which may reduce the number of credits that you can responsibly handle.

Then what if you son wants to take part in some of the experiences that only college can offer? Like study abroad? Maybe he does this and to maximize the experience only take 4-8 credits that semester? That puts him back another half a semester...

[OldTimer]

Are their really people out there that want to play college inline bad enough to take 12 credits per semester (and maintain decent enough grades not to get kicked out) solely to play roller hockey? I REALLY doubt it.

Maybe roller hockey motivates someone to go to college, rather than simply a desire to better themselves...but if that is the case, is it really a bad thing?

Oddly, there are. Usually these guys don't have a life other than hockey and partying, so it's almost worth it. To them, at least.

Roller hockey rarely motivates someone to go to college and do well. It brings to mind two certain very, very good individuals who went to Lindenwood and got a combined .75 GPA in their only semester. I don't know if that's even possible, but rarely is roller hockey the #1 motivator of going to college and doing well.

[MBurke]

Roller hockey rarely motivates someone to go to college and do well. It brings to mind two certain very, very good individuals who went to Lindenwood and got a combined .75 GPA in their only semester. I don't know if that's even possible, but rarely is roller hockey the #1 motivator of going to college and doing well.

... and the point is that those guys lasted only a semester. How many people can conceivably last more than five years on that plan without getting kicked out of school?

Still, turning over players is good for the league, too ...

:confused:

[InlineMBA]

Thanks for the Info Matt.

Dance - really? I'm an advocate of taking classes where females outnumber males, but I've seen him dance before and he's got two left feet. Guess I'll have to sit down with my son and have a little chat.

Odd though, he failed Intro to Dance 101, not a good start at all, sure must have been difficult to concentrate in class ;).

Steve Inge - ROXBURY 8

[CUDangled]

... and the point is that those guys lasted only a semester. How many people can conceivably last more than five years on that plan without getting kicked out of school?

Still, turning over players is good for the league, too ...

:confused:


I agree new faces in the leauge are a good idea, but it seems like we are spending countless hours (and/or posts) debating a rule that would only effect a few people. And of those few people that want to stay in the game a little longer as they get a master's degree or PhD...I can't think of anyone that has HURT our sport. Take Mike Mackert as an example. How many years did he play with MSU? I realize that his time was split between CRHL/NCRHA so the eligibility issue was slightly different, but you can't for a second argue that he didn't anything but help the sport...

I believe that contrary to the mindset of "its good to have constant turnover", the turnover is actually one of our downfalls. Typically the older guys on a team run the show, which means the leadership on these teams has no more than one or two years experience of actually running the organization (plus whatever guidence their prior "vets" passed on). I am not saying keep the same players forever, but if even 2-3 players per region stayed in system for more than 5 years, I think the league overall would benefit a great deal. How many guys are left that even know what the CRHL was? We learn from our life lessons...and how many valuable lessons have been lost? I have several friends that would have continued to play in grad school and the schools they were attending (different from undergrad) could have benefited from their past experience, not just on the floor but off the floor as well.

Then comes the arguement that if we don't flush out the old guys we can't ever bring in new faces and it may deny the opportunity for freshman to be able to play. Well isn't that what B teams/secondary teams are for? Schools that have more than enough players to fill one roster?

Just my thoughts...I know this is an issue that is difficult to come up with a perfect solution.

[MBurke]

Note: Split from previous topic since this has gotten some discussion going...

[JLambertUMSL]

Once again: it is not up to college roller hockey to change its rules to be the catch-all league for people who don't have other opportunities to play in an organized, season-based league.

And no matter how long it takes to get a degree, five years is enough.

[MBurke]

Once again: it is not up to college roller hockey to change its rules to be the catch-all league for people who don't have other opportunities to play in an organized, season-based league.

Once again: I don't think that's what is being represented here. If that were the case, you'd have people on here advocating that anyone be able to play, regardless of credit load or status in school.

In fact, most of the people advocating more years of eligibility are offering that in conjunction with INCREASING the credit load required, so as to include only full-time students.

And no matter how long it takes to get a degree, five years is enough.

What makes five years "enough" though? What is the concern with someone playing more than five provided they fulfill the requirements set forth to play in the league?

I think we're all in agreement that this is a rather small percentage of the overall population of players, especially when considering the possibility of increased credit requirements.

[rh9]

I think we're all in agreement that this is a rather small percentage of the overall population of players
I would not have a problem with this. Though it seems this "small percentage" includes the players that are dominating the NCRHA, leaving everyone else to ultimately play for second. In that sense I think five years is enough and we should see more new faces and maybe new champions in the league.
Even if Reggie Bush took 8 years to graduate from USC (which it most likely would have taken him) he still would have only played football for four. I know we're no where close to the level of D 1 football, but if we want to be taken seriously, why would we do any different?

[MBurke]

I would not have a problem with this. Though it seems this "small percentage" includes the players that are dominating the NCRHA, leaving everyone else to ultimately play for second. In that sense I think five years is enough and we should see more new faces and maybe new champions in the league.
Even if Reggie Bush took 8 years to graduate from USC (which it most likely would have taken him) he still would have only played football for four. I know we're no where close to the level of D 1 football, but if we want to be taken seriously, why would we do any different?

I think the number of dominant players staying over 5 years is overestimated and probably falls right in line with percentage of dominant players among overall players.

It DOES leave an opening for a school to administratively put together a blockbuster team by amassing a bunch of good students who are also talented hockey players, and that is the biggest flaw I see. However, barring major financial help from the school, I honestly doubt you would find many players able to carry on schooling at that type of pace for any reason other than to actually further their education.

In the NCAA there is something much more tangible up for grabs between student athletes - scholarships. That free education is a very limited commodity and far more valuable than a spot on a team, and is a big part of why the four-year rule is in place.

[CUDangled]

I would not have a problem with this. Though it seems this "small percentage" includes the players that are dominating the NCRHA, leaving everyone else to ultimately play for second. In that sense I think five years is enough and we should see more new faces and maybe new champions in the league.
Even if Reggie Bush took 8 years to graduate from USC (which it most likely would have taken him) he still would have only played football for four. I know we're no where close to the level of D 1 football, but if we want to be taken seriously, why would we do any different?

I realize that you weren't directly comparing Reggie Bush to the NCRHA, but you are also missing another important point. I would feel safe in assuming that 99.9% of the reason that Bush even went to college was to develop his game and gain exposure to NFL scouts. There would be no reason for him to stay in school for 8 years even if he could. On the flip side, 99.9% of the players in the NCRHA are going to college to earn a degree, not to use the NCRHA as a stepping stone to the next level. Playing roller hockey just happens to be a perk along the way.

You don't go to college just to go on spring break...you can vacation on your own.
You don't go to college just to play competitive hockey...you could just as easily play PIHA (or something similar) if you were that dedicated.

[MAmato]

It DOES leave an opening for a school to administratively put together a blockbuster team by amassing a bunch of good students who are also talented hockey players, and that is the biggest flaw I see. However, barring major financial help from the school, I honestly doubt you would find many players able to carry on schooling at that type of pace for any reason other than to actually further their education.You and I both know that a group of good students that were trying to further their education in a graduate setting wouldn't go to play roller hockey together unless the school offering the program was top-notch. That's a straw man that people are going to latch on to while I know very well that you don't buy it for a second.

I was going to type up an acerbic post about how the 5 year rule really culls the pool for some places of higher learning that don't have the manpower to hit DI, but I figured my incisive wit would be lost on a lot of people, so I'll simplify a bit:

I can totally see this being an issue in DI as the league is presently constituted (that the league is poorly constituted as-is we'll leave for another day). That said, DII teams are always on the verge of moving in and out of the league and their existence is predicated specifically upon the availability of players. Teams that exist in DII that have graduate school components are, with few exceptions, institutions of relatively higher learning than their undergrad-only compatriots. Nobody can sit here and tell me me that a school that has significantly higher admissions standards (Drexel and Temple, I'm looking at you), can recruit from the same talent pool as some of the other teams in DII and that puts them at an extreme disadvantage if you're going to take away any portion of the talent pool.

Take Cornell. It's a a half rate institution, and we got into the league late. But look at our god damned roster from last year:
- the starting goalie was a masters student who could have hypothetically been out of years if he took the normal track instead of the 5 year fast nerd track
- penalty minute king 2nd line forward was on his 5th year even though he's in year 2 of 6 of his ph.d on stuff that nobody here will understand (not that you'd want to, bioengineering is for the birds)
- all star forward is a 1L who didn't play in college before but would be out of years had he attended an undergrad institution
- veteran alt captain who would be out of years 1 year into his masters
- physics major will be out of years before he graduates
- engineer will likely be out of years before he graduates
- mba who didn't play with us will be out of years after 1 year

That's 7 players. Most teams are lucky to have 11 good, dedicated guys.

For anyone who didn't want to read (or can't), here's a quick recap:

The rules as they stand explicitly pander to the lowest common denominator in order to prevent schools of questionable academics from building a super-team (which has already been all but done in DI anyway) at the expense of smaller institutions who push academic excellence in addition to outside pursuits.


Also, to the gentleman up there who threw out 4 years being enough: in a lot of tracks, you need AT LEAST 5 before a job with a bright future opens up. That's not to say that guys with a 4 year B.S. are at a disadvantage to guys with a 5 year B.S. + 1 year Masters option... except honestly, looking at job offers amongst those two cohorts in my life, the jobs were decidedly better to those that had the extra year and hopefully the extra sheet of paper.