WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 31,303
- 20,265
The answer to the mystery is the NCAA is comically inept and inconsistentit's a pretty decent mystery how some seem to get through the clearing house.
The answer to the mystery is the NCAA is comically inept and inconsistentit's a pretty decent mystery how some seem to get through the clearing house.
Swankler was a case of the NCAA Clearinghouse just not doing a single quick Google Search to find Swankler's history on Elite Prospects or HockeyDB. Pretty dumb
(Amateurism) Which is the dumbest thing ever.
The answer to the mystery is the NCAA is comically inept and inconsistent
The basic answer is that is how soccer chooses to organize itself.
There's no draft in soccer. There's no attempt at trying to maintain "competitive balance" in soccer. They see no problem with the rich being rich and the poor being poor. As such soccer teams will try to identify talent very early on and recruit those players to then come up through their own youth system.
NHL/NBA/NFL do try to maintain competitive balance. As such all players are recruited through a draft. This also has the advantage for the leagues that some other organization (either universities, or junior hockey) they takes care of the cost of developing young players.
So the NHL could, if it wanted to, draft 16 year olds. All it would take is a change to the CBA. But think about what that would entail - now you're having to send NHL scouts out to watch bantam and midget games all over the place. What exactly would that do to the CHL if junior-age kids are now all the property of NHL clubs?
The thing here is we tend to look at all NCAA rules and as "Players vs Schools." But the NCAA rule book isn't that at all. Every NCAA rule makes a lot more sense when you consider the fact that ( -- A. it's SUPPOSED to be every student picked where to go to school for their education and THEN happen to play sports" instead of "I didn't come to Ohio State to play school" and B. -- ) the rules are made for SCHOOL VS SCHOOL.
They didn't make "You can't play NCAA if you played a pro game" to screw over a player, they created the rule to prevent schools from beating other schools by bringing in pro ringers.
They didn't say "You can't play NCAA if you got sponsorship money" to screw endorsed skier Jeremy Bloom so he couldn't play football; they created the rule to prevent SCHOOLS from shady recruiting against each other with "come to LSU and our car dealership will give you a car."
(And that is exactly what NCAA NIL is -- exactly as I told you it would be a decade ago. It's not "YOUR personal brand is famous, so you're offered endorsement money." It's a recruiting slush fund where "our boosters will give WHOMEVER is in that roster spot X sponsorship dollars."
Yes, they are middle-managers, not leaders and they've never gotten out in front of any issue and made a situation that worked well for everyone; instead they lose case after case and the repercussions are cataclysmic for a "league" with no revenue sharing and no safe guards. It's capitalist darwinism at its worst.
I think it's really more basic in that Soccer is not that popular of a sport, in particular for men, in the United States. It tends to be pretty far down the ladder and in competition with a bunch of other existing but not overly popular sports, compared to men's soccer popularity in most of the world. And for women, the rest of the world has historically lagged behind in Women's Sports in general and still does to some extent (although not to the same extent). You can compare the spread of Men and Women's Medals in the Olympics for instance. Countries that invest a lot in women's sports like USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand tend to win lots of medals in women's events because the competition isn't very deep, whereas Men's Events have a much thin spread. of medal distribution.That's why the US men sucked and the US women were dominant. US soccer just picked the best 23 we had out of 340 million people, and players like Mia Hamm developed organically though the amateur system we had. Brazil had no system, but with 300 million, they got Marta -- who literally said it to the camera at a World Cup: "No one is going to help you, YOU have to get here yourself."
But our best men's 23 players coming out of the amateur system were no where near what countries with a development system for youth were producing. And now that most those countries have basically taken the infrastructure they had and just said "women, too!" the rest of the world is catching up to USWNT.
The point is, the way the NCAA system develops players for the pro leagues isn't a formal choice by the pro leagues; it's just the NCAA evolving on its own, and the pro leagues not needing anymore players than what organically emerge from high school or NCAA sports.
I think it's really more basic in that Soccer is not that popular of a sport, in particular for men, in the United States. It tends to be pretty far down the ladder and in competition with a bunch of other existing but not overly popular sports, compared to men's soccer popularity in most of the world. And for women, the rest of the world has historically lagged behind in Women's Sports in general and still does to some extent (although not to the same extent). You can compare the spread of Men and Women's Medals in the Olympics for instance. Countries that invest a lot in women's sports like USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand tend to win lots of medals in women's events because the competition isn't very deep, whereas Men's Events have a much thin spread. of medal distribution.
You're describing the reason the US didn't have a soccer development system like the rest of the world (No one had the financial need to MAKE ONE).
Which is the exact same reason the Big Four pro leagues have a draft instead of making their own youth development system.
I'd be for that if they want to raise the draft age to 19. Otherwise we'll see more Auston Matthews situations where players will go to Europe to get paid until they're draft-eligible.Again - the NHL could sign a CBA with an "exceptional status" type provision if both they and the NHLPA wanted to.
But under the current CBA - no.
I'd be for that if they want to raise the draft age to 19. Otherwise we'll see more Auston Matthews situations where players will go to Europe to get paid until they're draft-eligible.
This is all true.
But remember soccer teams in the rest of the world don't have youth development programs out of the goodness of their hearts. They develop young players so they can control them if/when they grow up and actually get good.
Agreed it's been a total outlier, but I think it would happen more if 18-year-olds were denied a chance to go to the NHL right away.People bring up the Matthews to Europe situation happening but it has happened exactly ZERO times since then. Matthews was in a super unique spot and the opportunity opened up for him.
Not in the US they can’t. They would need a guardian or parent’s waiver. Age of majority in the US is 18.How do you think the CHL works then? Players are drafted, and sign contracts with the team.
A court is much more likely to void a contract signed by a minor if they feel it's unfair, but minors can definitely sign contracts.
I'd be for that if they want to raise the draft age to 19. Otherwise we'll see more Auston Matthews situations where players will go to Europe to get paid until they're draft-eligible.
I follow Miami University, and I don't think any of their freshmen are under 20. Pro teams have no idea what they're getting for the most part when they draft players at 18.
I'd be for that if they want to raise the draft age to 19. Otherwise we'll see more Auston Matthews situations where players will go to Europe to get paid until they're draft-eligible.
I follow Miami University, and I don't think any of their freshmen are under 20. Pro teams have no idea what they're getting for the most part when they draft players at 18.
Not in the US they can’t. They would need a guardian or parent’s waiver. Age of majority in the US is 18.
Also, minors may not be able to void certain sports and entertainment contracts, although this depends on state law. Professional sports leagues, for example, spend a lot of time and money scouting young athletes and signing them to high-profile deals. Considering how much money professional leagues generate and the way teams are built, a minor deciding to opt out of a contract could cause financial damage to an organization.
It just isn't that simple.
Can a Minor Sign a Contract?
We discuss how the law treats minors with respect to contracts, including how and when contracts may be voided.www.rocketlawyer.com
As it says - a contract signed by a minor may be voidable, but there are many exceptions. The link above specifically mentions sports contracts:
In any event - the whole "contracts signed by minors may be voidable" is all about trying to protect minors from being taken advantage of by sophisticated adults. If we're talking about a professional athlete under the age of 18 that person will absolutely be getting advice from a professional agent - and would probably get their parents to sign off as well.
I know Kobes parents had to co-sign his original contract since he was 17, once he turned 18 a few months later he signed a new one.
There has to be an agreement between the NCAA and CHL or players will have to request opt-outs in their CHL deal. The NCAA, USHL and CHL are all IIHF-sanctioned meaning that a team cannot simply steal a player signed to another league, but the NCAA and USHL has opt-outs that come into play if a player signs anything that could be consider a professional contract by them.
It'll eventually happen that CHLers play in the NCAA the only thing to be seen is if it'll be players who have finished their WHL careers like Whitehead would have or if players can jump ship after 18. Personally don't see players leaving until after their WHL careers and go NCAA instead of Usports but we'll see how things shake out
With Al the money in college sports and having virtually all the bells and whistles of pro sports and tv deals there simply no way that you can be a pure as snow amateur. The whole anti nil “ players are entitled “ crybabies need to get there heads out of the sand.
This is just the beginning. From what I'm hearing, the CHL is in discussion with the NHL to alter the CHL-NHL agreement. They are looking at two options. Option one, allow 18 and 19 year old players to play a set number of games in the AHL but those players must be returned back to the CHL after a certain date. Option two, allow each NHL team to roster a maximum of two U-20 players to an assigned AHL club.
The NCAA is also going to be making massive changes. They will begin to allow their players to play in pro leagues (Europe, the AHL or any other minor league) prior to their NCAA season or immediately after, provided they sign amateur try out contracts that do not pay any money.