This whole debate about young vs. old is bogus.  Dick Umile (UNH coach)
told me several years ago that the best thing that ever happened with
eastern hockey is when Hockey East started the interlocking schedule with
the WCHA (mid-80's).  At the time the eastern schools were, by and large,
still taking the "moral high ground", recruiting kids right out of
public/prep school and graduating them at age 21 or 22.
 
Soon after they started playing the UND's, Denvers, and Wisconsins of the
world, they found that many of the schools could not compete on a
consistent basis.  Why?  Because their opponents were mentally, emotionally
and physically more mature.  Thus, as time went on, the eastern schools
started to play the western recruiting game and THAT is why we are where we
are today.
 
The bottom line for all coaches is winning.  If you can't compete, you
can't win.  Period.  "Moral high grounds" mean nothing to coaches, winning
does.  If the NCAA says it's legal, then they will do what the rules allow
them to do.
 
One more point, I have watched the change in college hockey over the years
and all that is different now is the venue from which the players come,
not the players themselves.  They are still as earnest as they ever were,
striving to compete and, in most cases, getting their degree.  I see the
outstanding achievements, both on and off the ice, of guys who have come to
UNH and played and got their diplomas.  What difference does it make
whether they are 21 or 24 when they graduate?  They have their whole lives
ahead of them and, with a college degree, they have options that they may
not have had if they had taken the "moral high ground".
 
It's a waste of time to moralize about this issue.  On with the games!
 
Greg Ambrose
 
JASON KROG FOR HOBEY!!
GO UNH BLUE!!
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.