The "Makarov Rule"
How the rules around who is eligible to win the Calder Trophy came about, and the conversation around it
In 1990, Flames forward Sergei Makarov won the Calder Memorial Trophy as the NHL’s rookie of the year- he became the oldest player to do so at 31. This, naturally, seemed to spark some controversy. He had already played over ten seasons with CSKA Moscow and had won several IIHF World Championships alongside two Olympic gold medals. Was it fair to put someone with that level of experience in the same category as kids straight out of university? The NHL didn’t seem to think so, and they definitely had their reasons. For the 1990-91 season, the league introduced a rule (sometimes dubbed the “Makarov Rule”) where, for a player to be able to win the Calder Trophy, he must be under 26 years of age on September 15th of his rookie season. This is to try and stop players with years of experience playing professional hockey from winning the award when their competition is essentially a bunch of inexperienced 18-20 year-olds.
Whilst it is entirely understandable for this rule to have been implemented, it also raises several questions: why only make the rule then? What about players under 26 who’ve played years in professional leagues outside the NHL? Why 26 years old specifically? Well, there are no solid answers to those questions, as there are bound to be so many differing opinions, but the rest of this piece will attempt to provide some answers.
First: why was the rule only put in place after Makarov won? Sure, it makes sense for some sort of age limit to exist for a rookie of the year award, especially when most of the contenders are in their late teens/early 20s. There had been older Calder winners before (like Tony Esposito, who won the award at the age of 26 in 1970)- why was the rule not there already by the time Makarov made his way to the NHL? Well, it’s not quite clear. However, it is probably important to remember that, at the time, most of the Soviet hockey players who were set to play in the NHL from the 1989-90 season were around the age of 30. Of course, there were exceptions to this, the most notable being Alexander Mogilny, who defected to the United States when he was only 20. But it was looking like there would be more cases like Makarov’s, where an older and more experienced Soviet player would win the Calder. This can make it look like the concern only really came about when it was older Soviets who could be winning the award (when there had not been the same concern regarding Canadians, otherwise there would already have been restrictions), but the 1989-90 season also could have been the beginning of a several year period of older players winning the Calder. This meant that the younger rookies would have stood no chance at winning as their competitors would have been much more experienced than them.
Next- there are players under 26 who have played years of professional hockey, what about them? Many players spend some time in the AHL or the professional leagues in Europe (the most notable being the SHL and KHL) before making it to the NHL. And, as a result, even though they may not be too old to be eligible for the rookie of the year award, their existing experience as pro hockey players leads to controversy. The most recent example of this is Michael Bunting. Just young enough to be eligible for the award (turning 26 just two days after the cutoff last season), people raised their concerns about him going up for the award against less experienced players such as Trevor Zegras and Moritz Seider. Whilst the German defenceman had a few seasons in the pro leagues in Europe under his belt, it was nowhere near comparable to the 300+ games Bunting had played in the AHL prior to the 2021-22 NHL season. Whilst the Leafs forward would not end up winning the Calder, there was a debate all season long about whether he should even be allowed to compete for it. The previous season also saw similar issues when Kirill Kaprizov was named rookie of the year. Having spent almost six entire seasons in the KHL, combined with the fact that he was 24 years old when he won, plenty of people were unhappy to see him receive this award. Yet he was completely eligible- he was under 26 years of age on September 15, 2020. There should have been no problem.
The final question: why 26 specifically? Why not any other age? As mentioned above, even when players are under 26, if they are deemed to have “too much” pro hockey experience by fans, there is controversy. There seems to be two relatively easy fixes to the current Calder eligibility rule- either lower the age limit further (maybe to 23, as that would allow for college hockey players who want to stay and get their degree to do so) or put restrictions on how many pro league games a player can have appeared in. Simple. Personally, I like the sound of limiting the number of pro league games someone can play to remain eligible for the Calder. Age doesn’t always mean a player is more or less experienced. 18-year-olds are getting drafted every year who have already played in professional hockey leagues. There are hockey players who have been playing pro hockey since the age of 16. Surely then, under the same premise that guys like Kaprizov are too experienced due to age, these younger players who’ve been playing pro longer than their peers who, for example, remained in the CHL or chose to play NCAA hockey, shouldn’t be eligible as they have an “advantage.”
There is no denying that the NHL should probably update the rules surrounding the Calder Trophy. But they need to carefully consider how to do so. There are always going to be fans unhappy with whatever the league eventually choose to do, so they need to come to a conclusion that most will be happy with. There is no situation where everyone will agree with the choice made; that’s just not how things work. And, if and when the NHL does decide to make amendments to the “Makarov Rule,” hopefully it is not caused by a similar situation to that of 1990, where the league clearly did not think things through earlier.