Visors in the NCAA

[sheffy 0]

if canadian university hockey teams can wear visors, then i see no reason why NCAA teams couldn't wear them.

[trevor13478 1]

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2012/05/04_full_shields_closer_than_ever.php

interesting article, apparently the NCAA is getting close to making the change, finally...

[shooter27 116]

I'm still not sure what they mean by 3/4 visors. Are they talking about the extra long Heatley style visors or these visors http://www.hockeymonkey.com/oakley-cs20csa.html that they wear in the ushl.

I also wonder what they're going to do with the d3 level. Generally when it comes to protective equipment the NCAA is consistent across the divisions, so it would be kind of odd for them to wear visors in d1 and cages in d3.

[the_sock 1]

3/4 visors would be ones that cover the nose, Heatley's is like the USHL but a bit more aviator style.

[Captain Sane 2]

I think it's something the NCAA should allow simply because it makes no sense for players 18+ years old to be forced to wear a cage, in my opinion. However, I don't really buy the argument that allowing visors in the NCAA will have any impact on recruiting players away from Canadian Jr. leagues. I feel like most players make the decision to play in college or not based on other factors, not what kind of equipment they're allowed to wear on the ice.

[Chadd 916]

I think it's something the NCAA should allow simply because it makes no sense for players 18+ years old to be forced to wear a cage, in my opinion. However, I don't really buy the argument that allowing visors in the NCAA will have any impact on recruiting players away from Canadian Jr. leagues. I feel like most players make the decision to play in college or not based on other factors, not what kind of equipment they're allowed to wear on the ice.

Remember, the schools are on the hook for medical bills relating to the sport. Replacing cages with visors will cause an increase in health care costs for the team. I think you will see a visor rule attempted to be implemented in the NHL during the next CBA for that reason.

[Captain Sane 2]

Remember, the schools are on the hook for medical bills relating to the sport. Replacing cages with visors will cause an increase in health care costs for the team. I think you will see a visor rule attempted to be implemented in the NHL during the next CBA for that reason.

I think the NCAA realizes that, as do the schools, so if was as big of a problem as you suggest then the NCAA probably wouldn't change their rules. I mean you can say that there would be a huge increase in medical costs but you have no idea what the extent of it will be. I don't see a ton of schools coming out against it so they might feel it isn't significant enough to cause a major problem.

[BarDownGinos 3]

If it passes it will most likely be an option, not a requirement, just like the USHL. I've had this debate with people before and it boils down to this; You can't force someone to not wear a piece of safety equipment.

Seeing as how more and more D3 players are coming from junior hockey they will most likely be allowed ot wear visors as well. And while the ACHA uses the NCAA rule book, hopefully the powers that be there aren't dumb enough to follow along with it. On any given night in the ACHA you can have a guy who's an ex-NCAA D1 player going up against a kid who played midget AA. The risk there is far too great.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

If you go to school to play hockey, they can make you wear a cage. You are playing hockey on their money. It all comes down to liability. Insurance companies won't be eager to cover college hockey if the players are allowed shields. Too much risk especially since college hockey doesn't generate nearly as much money as professional leagues. If they allow visors in NCAA hockey, I am interested to see the financial implications on the schools, media and fans as a whole.

[BarDownGinos 3]

If you go to school to play hockey, they can make you wear a cage. You are playing hockey on their money. It all comes down to liability. Insurance companies won't be eager to cover college hockey if the players are allowed shields. Too much risk especially since college hockey doesn't generate nearly as much money as professional leagues. If they allow visors in NCAA hockey, I am interested to see the financial implications on the schools, media and fans as a whole.

The USHL seems to be doing ok with visors allowed. Insurance companies cover all sorts of leagues that allow visors. I doubt the rise, if there would even be one in insurance premiums would make a noticeable dent in the athletic budget. Just because you have a full mask on doesn't mean you can't get your teeth messed up, I've seen it happen.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

The USHL seems to be doing ok with visors allowed. Insurance companies cover all sorts of leagues that allow visors. I doubt the rise, if there would even be one in insurance premiums would make a noticeable dent in the athletic budget. Just because you have a full mask on doesn't mean you can't get your teeth messed up, I've seen it happen.

I understand you can get loose a couple of Chiclets with a cage but the chance increase with visors. That's a fact. And I don't know how premiums won't rise if there is more risk involved. As for the athletic budget, one would think that it will be affected if premiums do go up but that can only be verified by the universities. Here is a question: do sports get covered individually or as a whole in the NCAA? If they are covered as a whole, it wouldn't surprise me if other sports aren't on board with this change. This is all hypothetical of course.

[BarDownGinos 3]

I understand you can get loose a couple of Chiclets with a cage but the chance increase with visors. That's a fact. And I don't know how premiums won't rise if there is more risk involved. As for the athletic budget, one would think that it will be affected if premiums do go up but that can only be verified by the universities. Here is a question: do sports get covered individually or as a whole in the NCAA? If they are covered as a whole, it wouldn't surprise me if other sports aren't on board with this change. This is all hypothetical of course.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/02/college_athletes_rights_ncaa_r.html

Looks like a blanket policy for all athletes. The schools cover what they want and you pay for the rest.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

Alright. That may be the biggest factor in holding this up. If other sports have a say in this rule that is. I don't mind letting the kids choose. I don't think it's worth it but my face isn't the one at risk ha.

[shooter27 116]

Given the way the NCAA operates, I would doubt that other sports have a say in the rule. My understanding is that the NCAA is supposed to look out for what is best for all college sports under their umbrella, so the NCAA would function as a "voice" for the other sports, but I doubt they specifically have any say.

[Apes44 7]

http://www.uscho.com/2012/06/05/visors-overtime-go-under-microscope-in-rules-committee-meetings/

sounds like it will be 3/4 visors like Heatley

[raganblink 82]

Remember, the schools are on the hook for medical bills relating to the sport. Replacing cages with visors will cause an increase in health care costs for the team. I think you will see a visor rule attempted to be implemented in the NHL during the next CBA for that reason.

If they did require visors in the NHL, then everyone who doesn't want to wear one will just till that thing as high as it gets, ala Getzlaf in Olympics.

[shooter27 116]

It's interesting to me that if the rule proposal gets through the NCAA visors will be mandatory and there will be no option for wearing a full shield/cage (barring injury of course). I understand the wish for uniformity of equipment, but I would think there would still be some guys who opt for the full shield (just like in the USHL).

[BarDownGinos 3]

It's interesting to me that if the rule proposal gets through the NCAA visors will be mandatory and there will be no option for wearing a full shield/cage (barring injury of course). I understand the wish for uniformity of equipment, but I would think there would still be some guys who opt for the full shield (just like in the USHL).

I'm guessing the thought on that is that if everyone is wearing the visor, everyone will be paying much more attention to how they hit someone. A guy wearing a cage going face to face with a guy wearing a visor can be ugly.

[sitzlejd 0]

Maybe I don't know anything about insurance, but you don't see catastrophic injuries in the NHL (or junior leagues for that matter) b/c of lack of facial protection that often. I wouldn't think that the insurance would change that much if visors were allowed. It would mostly be stitches and stuff b/c of errant sticks. I think it's silly that college had to wear them. I went to Miami and I remember during the Ryan Jones years those guys would hang their cages so big that it looked like they would ram their throat if they got hit right. Surely a shield is safer than that anyway.

[shooter27 116]

I'm guessing the thought on that is that if everyone is wearing the visor, everyone will be paying much more attention to how they hit someone. A guy wearing a cage going face to face with a guy wearing a visor can be ugly.

Makes sense, it's just surprising to me seeing how the US junior leagues give players the option.

At the end of the day these guys are all high level players and most have played with a visor before college so I doubt the change will make much of a difference. I'm interested to see if they're going to use visors at the D3 level or if they'll keep using cages. There can be a much bigger talent disparity at D3 than you see at D1 and I could see that potentially leading to some problems.

EDIT - It looks like the visor proposal has been tabled to be part of a larger "safety improvement" package. So we won't be seeing visors for at least 2 more years (the NCAA rulebook cycle).