Visors in the NCAA

[hampshirepuck 2]

I believe they are switching over for the 2013-2014 season

[natbat 0]

I totally agree with you Chadd..but I just always found it odd that after HS..and those who go to Jr's (A/B/C what have you)..they're allowed to wear visors..but if they are Good enough to get picked up by a University, the cage has to go back on. Perhaps they should make it a PRO Only Rule. And Above (Men's League :P)

Yep, Always amazed me. I played Junior "B" and was allowed to wear a visor. Was very exciting at the time, but I ended up with several face injuries the first year I played.

Agreed, I highly doubt the NCAA would go to visors. The costs associated with it would be just too much.

The colleges can afford it. The money these schools make off those kids is ridiculous.

[iceNsteel 0]

Visors would create additional costs for the men's programs, which would then have to be doubled as the absurdity that is Title IX would require that an equal amount of money be spent on women's sports. The cage is also symbolic of the amateur status of college hockey players, as much as it increases safety. I just don't see the cage going away. The NCAA hockey system is different than the junior system, if you want to wear the visor then just go the junior route.

[hampshirepuck 2]

Canadian colleges have been wearing visors for

years! I think it would calm down players forcing them to play less reckless

[forbs02 20]

Visors would create additional costs for the men's programs, which would then have to be doubled as the absurdity that is Title IX would require that an equal amount of money be spent on women's sports. The cage is also symbolic of the amateur status of college hockey players, as much as it increases safety. I just don't see the cage going away. The NCAA hockey system is different than the junior system, if you want to wear the visor then just go the junior route.

A switch to visors will have no bearing on women's sports. I haven't heard anything official on the visor issue. I will ask around.

[iceNsteel 0]

A switch to visors will have no bearing on women's sports. I haven't heard anything official on the visor issue. I will ask around.

Of course it will. Insurance costs will go up, requiring increased spending. That spending must, by the quota system Title IX creates, be matched equally on women's sports. So if the insurance costs go up 5k a year, it's going to cost a university 10k because they will have to spend the same amount on women's sports.

[Chadd 916]

Canadian colleges have been wearing visors for

years! I think it would calm down players forcing them to play less reckless

It's going to create more facial injuries, even if the players do calm down. More lost teeth, more broken noses, more cuts from sticks, etc... it's inevitable.

[nickyb13 9]

Of course it will. Insurance costs will go up, requiring increased spending. That spending must, by the quota system Title IX creates, be matched equally on women's sports. So if the insurance costs go up 5k a year, it's going to cost a university 10k because they will have to spend the same amount on women's sports.

not to turn this into a debate about Title IX but...

http://www.nwlc.org/...x-and-athletics

Myth: Title IX requires equal spending on women’s and men’s sports.

Fact: Title IX does not require schools to spend the same amount of money on male and female athletes. Title IX requires schools to treat male and female athletes equally, but it recognizes that a football uniform costs more than a swimsuit. So it does not require that a school spend the same amount of money on uniforms for the swim team as for the football team. However, the school cannot provide men with top-notch uniforms and women with low-quality uniforms, or give male athletes home, away, and practice uniforms and female athletes with only one set of uniforms.

[iceNsteel 0]

This isn't a Title IX debate. However, look at your source and reality. A feminist group is probably not the most objective place to get information about the realities of Title IX. Title IX, when it was passed wasn't supposed to create a quota system, but that's exactly what happened.

[theGhost 0]

I can't see the advantages of switching to visor's outweighing the advantages of keeping them. It seem's that from a financial standpoint alone NCAA would oppose it..

[hampshirepuck 2]

It's going to create more facial injuries, even if the players do calm down. More lost teeth, more broken noses, more cuts from sticks, etc... it's inevitable.

True. But don't you think guys need to mature their game before they head to the show? Why have a guy who has been treated like a pro in Tier 1/Major Junior step back their game because they are wearing a visor?

[AllCanadian 2]

Any doubt on it raising costs? Just watch this feature on the WHL team we have here in Victoria. One of the youngest teams in the dub and the majority of kids have already lost a tooth or two or six in the one or two years they've been playing junior hockey. Every game I go to someone gets one in the face. Dental work is not cheap insurance or not, add that the rising stick budgets and I don't see how a lot of the smaller schools will react to the idea.

[shooter27 116]

This isn't a Title IX debate. However, look at your source and reality. A feminist group is probably not the most objective place to get information about the realities of Title IX. Title IX, when it was passed wasn't supposed to create a quota system, but that's exactly what happened.

Title IX does not require equal spending, it requires equal opportunity and treatment.

[hampshirepuck 2]

Title IX does not require equal spending, it requires equal opportunity and treatment.

I want to keep this chat going if we want to talk about title IX lets just start a thread.. I don't want to get this locked

[forbs02 20]

Talked to my counterpart with the men's team at MN. He hadn't heard anything about the switch and he is doubtful it will happen.

[natbat 0]

Here is an old but good article about the debate. http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2010/06/11_battle.php

[shooter27 116]

Surprising that CHI is actually for the change, but I understand their logic. Especially when it comes to winning the war for players with the CHL. Still doubt that the NCAA will go for it, especially because it has to consider the consequences for the levels below D1, but you never know with them.

[bigdmac 12]

Surprising that CHI is actually for the change, but I understand their logic. Especially when it comes to winning the war for players with the CHL. Still doubt that the NCAA will go for it, especially because it has to consider the consequences for the levels below D1, but you never know with them.

I think that's the only thing holding them back.

[gerbe3:16 19]

The colleges can afford it. The money these schools make off those kids is ridiculous.

I don't think there are a ton of schools that make money on hockey. Only some of the bigger schools that are either Big 10 type schools, one-trick pony athletic programs, or some other WCHA powerhouses.

And given the precarious nature of the smaller schools in this sport, many of which already took a shot to the chin with the conference realignments coming up, this could be a serious problem for many of the small schools if the healthcare costs go up significantly as a result of dropping full cages. These small schools are what make this sport unique and so great. UAH was dead and is now back and on life support. I'd worry for Bowling Green (a national title winner) as they are teetering on the brink. This COULD be bad for those types of teams.

[RussianDangler15 0]

I feel like theres no reason to not allow it. If the NCAA makes visors legal the players can still wear a cage if they choose. As for the dental work cost couldnt specific school decide whether or not they're willing to pay for and make their own policy on it from there.

[Lee-Bro 1]

Even if the NCAA allowed visors, it doesn't mean an individual school has to allow them in their program.

[BlueJacketBadger 0]

IMO, this is a bad idea. Its only going to cause more injuries. Id much rathar see them mandate cages in the pros instead of trying to have college players switch to visors.

[shooter27 116]

Even if the NCAA allowed visors, it doesn't mean an individual school has to allow them in their program.

The problem with that would be recruiting. Let's say two schools are recruiting a high end kid (maybe a first round draft pick) with big time pro aspirations. One school allows their players to wear visors, another doesn't. Everything else being equal, wouldn't a kid with that kind of pro potential choose the school that allows visors so that he has less of an adjustment to make when he went pro? Point being, if you choose not to allow players to wear visors it could put you at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting, which no school is willingly going to do. Also, I really don't know how the NCAA would feel about schools completely ignoring their in-place rules and making the decision on their own. Obviously, a school couldn't choose to have their players wear visors given the current rules, so I don't know if they would be able to do the reverse and not allow visors under rules where visors are allowed by the NCAA.

Now, at the lower levels, it may not be an issue.

[noodle3872 40]

You really believe a kid being recruited by an NCAA school because of his hockey talent would go to the school which allowed him to wear a visor over a full face shield? I've been around our Junior A team for years; I know Jeff Tambellini, David Van der Gulik, Mark Olver and Shawn Horcoff to name a few former players that went the NCAA route. I can remember having conversations with these guys about which school they favored and each had several schools courting them. Their comments were about what educational programs (eg: business, finance etc) the school specializes in (because as much as they wanted a hockey career they knew there is life after hockey) and how they'd fit into the hockey program. Never once did I ever hear them complain about going from a half shield in Junior A to wearing a full shield in NCAA. I really think it's a non-issue for a player.

[shooter27 116]

You missed the point of what I was saying. My point was other things being equal (those things including education, coaching, facilities, etc) then one school not allowing players to wear visors could be a competitive disadvantage in recruiting and no school would willingly place itself at a competitive disadvantage, perceived or otherwise. I understand you know a lot of guys that went through the recruting process and have talked about it with them. And the things that you mentioned are all the factors that players who are being recruited tell people they are considering. But, I went through the recruiting process myself and played with a lot of guys that went through it. I can tell you that when players talk amongst themselves other, much more trivial factors come up. For example, a friend of mine who was a mid-round draft pick actually used to make comments about which equipment company the schools he was being recruted by wore. It wasn't a deciding factor in his choice, but it was something he considered and I never said a player would make something like that a deciding factor in his school choice. All I said was that in an other things equal situation, it may come up as a factor, and schools would never put themselves in a position to be at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting over something as trivial as whether or not their players could wear visors if the NCAA allowed visors. So the cocept of School A not allowing their players to wear visors despite the NCAA allowing it was not valid.

At the end of the day, this conversation is pretty much moot because the NCAA will likely never allow it anyway.