RED ARMY EAST
Registered User
Great game last night, there were lot's of bumps and bruises. X had 2 or 3 players banged up, while Gilmour took a big hit and looked to be in some discomfort on the UNB side.
I would assume that would be X number of players dress a game throughout the year? I’m in favour of this on both points , more local flavour likely and no Acadia playing with a Pewee house league sized lineupSolid rumor: The AUS "Cap" will be removed for this coming season.
I don't know for certain but there may be a requirement for X number of Jr A players. It may be 1 or 2, idk.
If anyone hears more on this let us know.
Cap will be remove , from my understand if player gets hurt or IR allowing player won’t go against “a cap”.Solid rumor: The AUS "Cap" will be removed for this coming season.
I don't know for certain but there may be a requirement for X number of Jr A players. It may be 1 or 2, idk.
If anyone hears more on this let us know.
Not going to lie…I thought it was curious this would come out after a less than great showing from the AUS at Nationals.
Where’s the fun in that??Been in the hopper for a while, so no conspiracy.
I'm assuming you mean all of USports needs to FOLLOW the maximum AFA payout used by the AUS. There's no such thing as 'full-ride' funding in men's hockey; only in women's hockey where they are trying to compete with NCAA recruiting.All of Usports needs to review AFA “Full ride guideline that AUS applies especially at Hockey level”
K. Sure
Does every CHL player get the same package in AUS, CW, OUA? If so, THAT is a moot point.Reimbursement of chl package to player = full ride. This has been happening for long time. And will continue.
Not all player receive entire school package back but any amount to said player equal competitive edge in recruiting etc
I am aware some on these board are involved in AUS Hockey and will run to their reports
No sour grapes at all. Point is reimbursement part with addition to afa money. Chl packages cover books tuition etc but at no point should player receive that money back. I’m not aware of any oua or cw school doing this. They might though. This is great conversation piece
You are right on recruiting part
Point is. Chl package is cover all expenses not to cover all expenses and then go back into player pocket. I am aware of ex player many moons ago. Walking away with free education plus 40k in there bank account
That point I’m making. Is all of AUS/OUA/CW doing it. Who knows. But I hear a lot of AUS talk
The problem here is rooted in the fact that AFA guidelines and rules vary from conference to conference and sport to sport. If USports wanted to eliminate some of the competitive advantages, they'd have a single set of rules for all member schools and conferences. But, whether they're motivated not to make these rules, or it's simple apathetic buck-passing, they have refused to fix these issues (that appear in more than just men's hockey, by the way).We can agree to agree. It's NOT AUS talk, the AUS does it to the "limits" they are allowed, Because It Is NOT Illegal.
Some programs run hockey schools where the players are PAID to work there. Should that be stopped as well?
I'll try and give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you are implying that there may not be a level playing field. I can accept that, but to repeat myself again, there is nothing wrong with what the AUS (for example) is doing.
It would be like some OUA schools complaining that AUS/CW schools are getting guys from the CHL where they can only get Jr A players. Should all CIS programs only recruit to the level of the "worse" school? I don't think so. Maybe some schools can only afford Canadian Tire wooden sticks; does that mean that all schools should do the same?
If the OUA has the ability to offer a "scholarship" package but does not, the issue is with them and not other conferences that do.
The problem here is rooted in the fact that AFA guidelines and rules vary from conference to conference and sport to sport. If USports wanted to eliminate some of the competitive advantages, they'd have a single set of rules for all member schools and conferences. But, whether they're motivated not to make these rules, or it's simple apathetic buck-passing, they have refused to fix these issues (that appear in more than just men's hockey, by the way).
Quite frankly, men's hockey players have a massive financial advantage already, given that there is a 60-team, privately-owned organization that provides scholarship dollars strictly based on games played. No other incoming student-athlete in this country - especially in women's sports - have anything like this available to them. Want to talk real fairness across the board? Let's have the same dollar amount across all conferences and all sports, and factor the CHL scholarship dollars into that limit - because I've never heard a rumor of a women's hockey player graduating with no debt and $40k in pocket.