They Raised The Draft Age

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,816
10,387
Charlotte, NC
txomisc said:
I think we saw what the courts would think about this with the NFL.

Actually, we saw what a single judge thinks about this, not the courts. Until there is a Supreme Court ruling on this (which boils down to individual rights vs. union rights) then it can still go either way.
 

Blind Gardien

nexus of the crisis
Apr 2, 2004
20,537
0
Four Winds Bar
MaV said:
I'm still saying this: why not let the 18 year old be drafted only in the first round? That would make the transistion so much more easy. For 2006 they could have 1988 born players available in 1st round and let's say before May 1st '88 in all rounds. Then get it fully going in 2007 by having '89 born players in 1st round, and '88 born or older in all rounds.
And for that matter, just keep the 18-year olds eligible only in the 1st round forever after too, because that dodges the legal issue.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,816
10,387
Charlotte, NC
Buffaloed said:
What court decision was that?

The same one cited by Maurice Clarett's lawyers that won him the first case and declared him eligible for the 2004 draft. The federal appeals court then overturned it a few days before the draft, but that doesn't mean the appeals court couldn't be overturned. Once Clarett was ineligible for the 2004 draft, it became a non-issue. Of course, the Supreme Court refused to hear it the first time, but they said nothing about the merits of Clarett's case... they wouldn't take a case that was put on hold by the Appeals court.

Edit: The Supreme Court declined to hear Clarett's case a couple of months ago. I guess that you could say they have ruled on it by allowing the Appeals court decision to stand.
 
Last edited:

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
Tawnos said:
The same one cited by Maurice Clarett's lawyers that won him the first case and declared him eligible for the 2004 draft. The federal appeals court then overturned it a few days before the draft, but that doesn't mean the appeals court couldn't be overturned. Once Clarett was ineligible for the 2004 draft, it became a non-issue.

Please cite it, because from what I recall, there was no court case that forced the NHL to lower its draft age in 1979. I recall that being worked out between the NHL and NHLPA to accomodate the merger with the WHA. If there's an applicable legal precedent handed down by a court, we want to see it.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
joepeps said:
The draft age should be set at 20-21 years of age....

Why because then there legal in the states

but most importantly they don't waste there life away without college/university..

There missing out on that experience... Go t school play Hockey with your school then get drafted...

There just getting out of high school and getting drafted :shakehead

What are they going to do with their lives after hockey or if hockey does't work out for them???? :teach:

Write poorly constructed sentences on message boards and use the "teach" icon?
 

Benji Frank

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,811
24
Visit site
Maybe they'll phase it in over a couple of season's otherwise next years draft will more or less be a farce. From what I understand, this years draft is only 7 rounds. Perhaps next year will be the same, so that some of the 18 year olds who get bi-passed this year will be picked next year eating up some of the 210 picks and then by 2007, they might go back to a normal 12 round (although I think that's way too long!!!) draft with calander year and 19 years of age eleigibility.......

Doesn't the NFL have some sort fo opt-in clause for underage guys? Perhaps the NHL will have this also for a few years.....
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Harper said:

If this were to take effect THIS year, Gary Bettman should be fired immediately. Only him and this laughable league would make Sidney Crosby wait another year.

Given their history of running the league into the ground, I thus would not be surprised to hear it take effect NOW.

What a bunch of jokers.

And as someone said, if it DID take effect next year, who the hell are they going to draft next year? Sloppy seconds?
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,816
10,387
Charlotte, NC
Buffaloed said:
Please cite it, because from what I recall, there was no court case that forced the NHL to lower its draft age in 1979. I recall that being worked out between the NHL and NHLPA to accomodate the merger with the WHA. If there's an applicable legal precedent handed down by a court, we want to see it.

Problem is, I can't actually seem to find anything more than multiple references in Clarett articles.

His attorneys had relied on a court ruling letting Major League Baseball players move among teams, and other court decisions opening up the NBA and NHL to younger players.

Many articles have that same basic statement. http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/7274470

I know I've read more specific references, but I cannot find them now because everything is flooded with the Clarett stuff.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
Tawnos said:
How about precedent? The NHL lowered it's draft age to 18 in 1980 because the 18-yr olds WON the right in court..
If the raised draft age is part of a negotated CBA they have no legal ground to "sue"
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
HockeyCritter said:
If the raised draft age is part of a negotated CBA they have no legal ground to "sue"

They can't win a suit based on anti-trust law because of that, but a suit based on civil rights law (age discrimination) would have a chance.
 

Tekneek

Registered User
Nov 28, 2004
4,395
39
Buffaloed said:
The motivation is to save money, by removing some of the uncertainty from the process. The older a prospect is, the easier it is to make projections about his future. The period between the ages of 18 and 19 seems particularly critical with hockey prospects. Theoretically, there should be a lot less first round busts with a 19 year old draft. Teams should have a better idea on which draft choices to offer contracts to, and how much they should offer.

I really wish sports teams could govern themselves. If they think an 18 year old is too much of a gamble, just don't pick him. Don't protect yourself with rules changes because you are afraid someone else will gamble and be better than you at it in the draft.
 

Tekneek

Registered User
Nov 28, 2004
4,395
39
HockeyCritter said:
If the raised draft age is part of a negotated CBA they have no legal ground to "sue"

I would not say that guarantees a suit could not proceed. What sort of legal foundation is this claim based on and what legal precedent has established that standard?

People need to consider that the complications go beyond the NFL's case, because the NHL does business in TWO countries.
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
Tekneek said:
I really wish sports teams could govern themselves. If they think an 18 year old is too much of a gamble, just don't pick him. Don't protect yourself with rules changes because you are afraid someone else will gamble and be better than you at it in the draft.
That is sort of the underlying reason for the lockout.
 

Tekneek

Registered User
Nov 28, 2004
4,395
39
MikeC44 said:
How much do you want to bet that with the raised draft age they will now allow players drafted out of the CHL to play in the AHL at 19?

And sell it to the CHL as a small price to pay to get to keep 100% of their 18 year old players? CHL loses on this deal and won't like it. They don't lose many 18 year old players anyway.
 

Tekneek

Registered User
Nov 28, 2004
4,395
39
AdmiralPred said:
That is sort of the underlying reason for the lockout.

A great point. How soon I forgot that NHL teams don't trust each other at all.
 

Randy May

Registered User
Saprykin Fan said:
i told you guys all of this 2 months ago and none of you believed me, u just deleted my posts cause you guys think i have no credit or sources, thank you very much. :madfire:
Don't sweat it Dean...good job on the tip...you have to admit there was a lot of other nonsense posted here I'm sure they were trying to be objective with deletions.

By the way are you playing Junior A or Major Junior this Fall? Shoot me an email if you get a minute.
 

MaV

Registered User
Jun 23, 2002
533
51
Blind Gardien said:
And for that matter, just keep the 18-year olds eligible only in the 1st round forever after too, because that dodges the legal issue.

Yes, that was the idea ;-) That should really be enough from the legal point of view.
 

boredmale

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 13, 2005
42,363
6,930
this is stupid, i have nothing against changing the rules, but if your going to do it do it now. I feel sorry for any teams that get high draft picks next year(ie top 5) other then those guys who were born between sept 15 - december 31 and good colege playrs, that draft will get thin pretty fast.
 

IceDragoon

Registered User
Jun 25, 2003
3,871
0
South of Sanity
Visit site
Hedberg16 said:
Next years draft is going to look like one of the old supplemental drafts.
They'd be smart to make it a 7 rounder, like this one. Won't be quite as thin, then. And, at least a few of the guys who could have been picked in rnds 8-9 this year, should improve enough to go next year. It certainly wouldn't be the first entry draft with slim pickin's.

Next year's draft may be one of those 'suck it up, buttercup' moments...
A means to an end, where kids develop longer, before teams commit resources to them.
Mind you, I've always thought that the draft age should be 19, so I like this move.
It's a start.
;) :D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->