It would seem that hell has just frozen over. Or that pigs can actually fly. We say that because, for once, we are actually siding with NHL dictator Gary Bettman on an issue.
Every once in a while, hockey fans stumble across a story that seems so bizarre they assume it must be an misunderstanding. The NCAA’s newly proposed five-year eligibility rule falls squarely into that category
At first glance, the idea sounds harmless enough. The NCAA wants athletes to have five years of eligibility within a five-year window beginning at high school graduation or age 19, whichever comes first. The goal is to simplify a system that has become cluttered with redshirts, waivers, exemptions and legal challenges. In football and basketball circles, that may sound perfectly reasonable. In hockey, however, it threatens to create a mess where none currently exists.
Unlike most NCAA sports, elite hockey prospects rarely move directly from high school to college. Instead, they spend valuable development years in junior hockey, whether that be the CHL, USHL or other leagues. Many players do not arrive on a college campus until they are 20 or 21 years old. Under the current system, that presents no problem. A player can mature physically, improve his game, and then enjoy a full NCAA career. Under the proposed rule, however, the eligibility clock would already be ticking while those players are still developing in junior hockey.
The result is easy to see. Players would feel pressure to leave junior hockey sooner than they otherwise would. Colleges would be encouraged to recruit younger players. Junior leagues could lose talent earlier than expected. The entire development pipeline that has served college hockey, junior hockey and the NHL remarkably well for decades would suddenly be thrown into uncertainty.
This comes on the heels of another NCAA rule change (allowing players from Canada’s elite major-junior leagues to transfer to NCAA schools, after decades of ineligibility) that has created a “wild west” recruitment situation on both sides of the Canada/USA border.
What makes this story particularly noteworthy is the list of people opposing the proposal. The NHL, the NHLPA, the CHL, USA Hockey, college hockey commissioners and coaches have all found themselves on the same side of the debate. In an era when hockey’s various power brokers often struggle to agree on anything, that level of unity speaks volumes.
The NCAA insists it is trying to solve broader eligibility issues affecting all sports, and that may well be true. The problem is that hockey operates under a development model unlike virtually any other NCAA sport. Applying a one-size-fits-all solution to college athletics risks damaging a system that many believe is already working exactly as intended.
For once, Gary Bettman and the NHL are not fighting over money, expansion fees or television contracts. They are defending a development structure that has produced generations of successful players. Whether fans love Bettman (huh?) or loathe him (heh-heh), this may be one of those rare occasions when he finds himself on the right side of an issue.
The NCAA may view this as an administrative adjustment. Hockey sees it as a really stupid idea—something the NCAA has specialized in for many decades.
