What is the Point of the 5 Year Eligibilty Rule?

[wednthavddr]

I was just wondering why the NCRHA made the 5 year eligibility rule. It is obvious that roller hockey needs as many people playing it as possible to increase the interest in the sport. I know people who completed 5 years in the league and are still in school. Now what? Now they are going to play in the local beer league once a week.
It bothers me because I love this sport and know a lot of people in it. All people talk about is needing everybody's effort in making it known. I hate when people ask me, "Do you play ice hockey?" I have to say no roller hockey. They ask, "Is that played with rollerblades and a ball?" I want to kill myself when I hear that.
I think it is hurting the sport so much when you kick kids out of playing competitive roller hockey. I understand you may need to do it for incoming people to get a chance to play. If you didn't have that 5 year rule, you will have more competitive teams and more "B" teams. For schools to establish B teams that would help the sport so much. More people will be playing and more people will know about roller hockey.

I would just like some feedback on people's feelings on the rule. I wasnt made aware of it until a few months ago and it bugged me.

[luhockey1]

Not having a 5 year eligibility rule is the reason that people don't give roller hockey credit. Roller hockey is a great sport, but some of the tricked up rules and lack of stability give all the ice hockey people all the ammunition they need.

[BLowe7]

I like the eligibility rule, but I don't think a person should be limited at 5, it should be anyone in any type of higher education can play. If I start playing as an undergrad, then go to grad school and then even more, I can only play 5 of those years? I think thats dumb

[NYR1199]

I have to agree with having eligibility rules in place. This is a competitive league and should mirror other NCAA sports. However I see your point, i think 5 for undergrad and an additional 2 for grad student would be very fair.

[bakerg81]

I think 5 years is perfect. 7 years of playing for the same team is not what college roller hockey should be about. College roller hockey should be about fostering new players and programs developing to the point where turnover each year changes the dynamic of a team. There are other roller hockey leagues in the country where you can keep teams together for 6 or 7 years at a time. College is not the place for that.

[MBurke]

When the rule was originally created, most students could actually graduate in four years. The national average now is creeping towards five years, in large part due to the way that universities are now scheduling their classes to force five years of attendance. NCRHA/CRHL built in a year of 'padding', essentially.

Ultimately, this is a club sport, not the NCAA, and the rule was intended to prevent students from staying in school solely to play roller hockey, not penalize those who are either pursuing higher education or those who transfer or change majors for some reason.

I've talked with a few club reps in and there's a possibility we may propose changing the eligibility rule to (more or less) read as follows:

• Minimum 9 credits for both grad and undergrad students (this eliminates the 'one class' grad students)
• Petition permitted for < 9 credits but must be replaced by either a school-sanctioned co-op or similar arrangement in lieu of credit hours
• Players are allowed six years of undergraduate eligibility, but must continue to carry the credit minimum throughout
• Graduate/Doctoral students may play indefinitely, but also must continue to carry the credit minimum

Obviously this has drawbacks - the most significant change in my mind is not the graduate student requirement (since the credit hours are increased I think that problem is 'solved'), but instead the possible move to six years of eligibility for undergrads.

Does six years keep guys hanging around too long, or is it more fair to someone who changes a major or schools midstream and doesn't get all of his credits transferred?

[islanderfan]

9 credit hours for Grad students would virtually eliminate grad students from the league. I know very few grad students who take 9 credit hours per semester. Most take 3-6 credit hours and have very little time for anything else. I would hope that the league would not go there. I believe the "pursuing a degree" rule is sufficient.
I do like the 5 year rule, as it keeps the teams fresh and gives more players the opportunity to not only play, but lead their clubs. Remember, in most cases, this is a club sport. The idea of club sports is to enjoy sport, represent your school, and gain valuable experience for your future. Leadership in a club is a great way to gain leadership experience.
I have nothing against a student staying in school just to play hockey. If that is what it takes for some people to get a college education, great. The education will not hurt them and some of it is bound to stick. If playing hockey allows someone to better themselves, super. The focus on hockey as a priority may not be right, but the effect, a college education, is a great side benefit. I have had parents tell me that their son/daughter stayed in school so they could continue to play hockey. These parents have been grateful for the sport program so their children ended up with a degree and a better shot at a future. Not all 18-22 year olds have their priorities straight, but if we can help them learn more, we should. The reason someone goes to school really doesn't matter. The exposure to learning is what a college education is all about. Whatever creates that exposure is worthwhile.

Jerry Remsbecker
KSU Roller Hockey Club
Faculty Adviser & Coach

[2ballscrewball]

Do you get to play 5 seasons? I know when I played sports in college, you had 5 years to play 4 seasons. You could be on the team for five season, but you could not play in games one of those seasons. Ex. The red shirt freshman. He was on the team for 5 years but he only was allowed to play in games 4 seasons.


My school had a “club” volleyball team that had 5 years to play 4 seasons, but then they also had an alumni team that players could continue to play for. The alumni team consisted of players in their 6th, 7th, 8th and so on year of college.

The alumni team traveled and played in the same tournaments as the regular team. The regular team usually beat the alumni team.

Maybe inline hockey could do something like this.

[JLambertUMSL]

I was just wondering why the NCRHA made the 5 year eligibility rule. It is obvious that roller hockey needs as many people playing it as possible to increase the interest in the sport. I know people who completed 5 years in the league and are still in school. Now what? Now they are going to play in the local beer league once a week.

Play PIHA.

It bothers me because I love this sport and know a lot of people in it. All people talk about is needing everybody's effort in making it known. I hate when people ask me, "Do you play ice hockey?" I have to say no roller hockey. They ask, "Is that played with rollerblades and a ball?" I want to kill myself when I hear that.
I think it is hurting the sport so much when you kick kids out of playing competitive roller hockey. I understand you may need to do it for incoming people to get a chance to play. If you didn't have that 5 year rule, you will have more competitive teams and more "B" teams. For schools to establish B teams that would help the sport so much. More people will be playing and more people will know about roller hockey.

I would just like some feedback on people's feelings on the rule. I wasnt made aware of it until a few months ago and it bugged me.

Because this is a college league.

[JLambertUMSL]

Not having a 5 year eligibility rule is the reason that people don't give roller hockey credit. Roller hockey is a great sport, but some of the tricked up rules and lack of stability give all the ice hockey people all the ammunition they need.

Amen. Tricked up rules, lack of stability, lack of enforcement, equals lack of legitimacy.

[JLambertUMSL]

Sweet! If we're really going to abolish the five year rule, tell us now so we can start targeting players who have graduated from more expensive schools but wouldn't mind taking nine hours for cheap and "pursuing a second degree" at UMSL.

Trust me. You don't want this to start happening. The whole Deskins thing was enough of an embarrassing joke (and I hope it's addressed at the BOD meeting this summer).

[cgustanski]

I don't like the idea of requiring 9 credits for grad students. My graduate program is set up to have 2 classes per semester for two years. There's no way I would be able to take 9 credits and play. That would just be too much.

[MBurke]

Sweet! If we're really going to abolish the five year rule, tell us now so we can start targeting players who have graduated from more expensive schools but wouldn't mind taking nine hours for cheap and "pursuing a second degree" at UMSL.

Trust me. You don't want this to start happening. The whole Deskins thing was enough of an embarrassing joke (and I hope it's addressed at the BOD meeting this summer).

If they're a legitimate student capable of:
a) being accepted into a graduate program
b) maintaining the credit hours required (based on feedback, maybe we bump it to six credits for grads?)

... how many hockey players do you know that can pull that off?

I don't know what there is to really 'address' as it pertains specifically to Deskins, other than the professional hockey player side of the issue. His playing in the league is no different than any other graduate student playing over the last 5 years.

[wednthavddr]

Keep this thread going, but thanks for all the feedback. I can now see both sides of th argument. I go to USF and have been running the team for awhile. Ive done so much advertising for our team but we still could not bring out that "deep" team of players. The 5 year eligibilty rule has a crappy effect on us because of some players, and i tried seeing the other side. I see the problem of not having an eligibilty rule, especially for teams that just have people in school just to play hockey. In our case the people in school are fully committed to their education but just enjoy playing hockey, and now they cant.

I think there is a difference in some people's views of what they want the sport of roller hockey to become. I think people want it to get to the point of stardom, then some may just want to see NARCH on television with the best talent and a **** load of teams playing in it.

Also somebody made a comment to play PIHA after college. Im still in school but the PIHA isn't organized in Florida, and I do not think it can. I think there are 6 total rinks in Florida and 2 have sport court. You can go to some states where the only rinks are sport court. It would be awesome to have the PIHA in Florida but the from the games that I have seen i can never see a big crowd.

Thanks for everybodys feedback..I can see both sides of the reason for why the eligibility rule was made

[Leaferguy]

The good thing about this rule is it forces the player to move on, IMO.

I'd love to get another shot at a Regional Championship and then go to Nats. College roller was just something I loved doing. Fact is that I'm going to be graduating and moving, so playing college roller would feel disingenuous. It sucks for some, but you should look at PIHA, tournament teams, or house league. Nothing will ever continue forever, and that's part of the beauty of sport.

Apologies for the flowery tone, but all good things must eventually come to an end.

By the way... anyone know when PIHA's planning to expand to the Dallas/Houston area ??