Stab in the dark ... you are a Minnesota fan.  Just a hunch.
 
> As long as the college players are the same age, I say let 'em
> compete with the best.
 
 
no dispute with that last comment.
 
> I do have a problem, however, with the intense recruiting of junior
> players that has escalated in the last few years.  There are too many
20-year
> old freshman competing against 18-year olds.  Many of us can still
remember
> when we were of that age, and of the level of maturity and physical size
that
> can be gained in those 2 important formative years.
 
There is an age maximum ... 25 years old I believe -- after that, whatever
happens, happens.
 
How is this different than kids who go to New England prep schools and enter
college at 19 -- or USHL kids who play one or two extra years?
 
I do think it is a good point that Minnesota has a disadvantage by taking
talented but immature and inexperienced 18 year-olds and playing them
against older teams -- but that is their choice.  Most other teams will
gladly take a highly talented 18-year old right out of high school, but
they've mixed in other 20-year olds, or prep school kids (see BU, Maine,
Michigan - or anyone else for that matter).
 
 
> I think the recruiting of juniors is a cop-out.  It takes less evaluative
> skill to rate players after 2 more years of growth and junior play.
 
It takes less evaluative skill to only take players from Minnesota.  ;)
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.