Instead of knocking 20-year-old freshmen who have been recruited
out of junior hockey, why not applaud them?  They weren't ready
for the big time as 18-year-olds, so they paid some more dues in
the USHL, Canadian junior leagues or wherever in an attempt to
still reach their dream.  They didn't settle for second best.  They
kept working toward their goal.
 
In today's instant gratification society, that's to be admired, not
slammed.
 
For those looking to invoke a John Mariucci-style argument about
competitive disadvantages, it doesn't wash.  Mariucci complained,
and rightly so, during an era where the age limitations and rules
regarding major junior hockey were very different.  There were
cases of 30-year-old collegiate hockey players, ones who had
gone through the ranks of major junior and so on.
 
Today, the NCAA rules are clear.  When you hit 21, the eligibility
clock starts ticking.  And even a single game of major junior hockey
will cost you one year of eligibility plus the one game.
 
Two years ago, Boston College was rebuilding its program and had a
power play of four 18-year-olds and a 19-year-old.  The Eagles weren't
exclusively 18-year-old freshmen, but most of their marquee players
were.  A year later, they were playing in the national championship
game.
 
Each program will go after the players it feels are right for them
within the rules the NCAA has laid down.  The excesses of the Mariucci
era are over.  Mariucci had some righteous indignation going for him.
Today, however, there is no moral high ground in picking an 18-year-old
freshman over a 20-year-old freshman who simply had to pay more dues.
 
Personally, I take my hat off to the kids who kept after their goal and
reached it.
 
Dave Hendrickson
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.