Re: Gophers 2013-14 B1G Things To Come!
1. From my experience, news stories are almost never 100% correct in their interpretation and representation of people they are quoting/paraphrasing. So taking one line out with the authors' interpretation of Trent's position doesn't convince me he is all or nothing.
2. And I don't think most are necessarily arguing for all one way or another. I think even most people recognize there are cases to be made for kids who left early who might have been better off staying and and some who clearly are in a position in HS they won't get the competition they could benefit from. In the case of Pro-Staying-in-HS crowd, a lot I know don't say no one should go, just that less pressure should be put on these kids at such a young age, when many of them will give up their last years of HS to never end up as a Pro.
3. I realize there is pressure to stay. I have seen it too. But I don't see that pressure as being a worse situation than the pressure to leave, which might not have been your intent, but seems to be your implication.
4. I will admit I am biased towards kids staying because I like HS hockey. When you are a very good player on a team on a perennial power, playing a tough schedule (Edina, Hill Murray, Duluth East, etc) I think in most cases you are not gaining a lot over what you are losing. If you are in bumbleFk, MN and better than everyone in the conference, or if you are the next coming of Sid the Kid playing anywhere, then move on.
A couple examples of things that should enter into the discussion:
1. Players who have left early and and it didn't pan out. One of the reasons for my leaniong towards kids staying was what I saw with one very talented kid in a hurry to move on. There was a Sophomore in my town who I thought was as good a player as the MR Hockey Senior on the team. He left his Junior year for Canada, a little undersized for the rough league. A few concussions later, he's out of hockey. Might have got concussions in HS too, but probably less likely.
2. Not that this can be put on the individual player trying to decide his future, but you must acknowledge the fear of some about the deterioration of HS hockey if the trend of better players leaving early grows. Part of what makes little kids want to play hockey in a lot of small towns in MN is seeing their HS team do well, and maybe make the tourney. The little kids look up to those star players in the tourney, admire them and want to emulate them. There are a lot of sports competing for these kids now compared to 20 years ago. If the stars keep leaving and the quality deteriorates, will as many kids be recruited to the sport in the future in MN? (I'll admit I didn't buy this when I first heard it, but as I've thought about it, it think it might have some merit. Problem is, even if it is valid, you can't expect a kid to stay 'for the good of future hockey in MN'.)
I guess after all this ranting and raving (alcohol hasn't helped clear my thought process), the point is, with the acknowledged pressure to move on early, what is so wrong with an article pointing out the benefits of staying? What is the harm in a guy who has been through what Klatt has saying that being with family and friends a little longer is a good thing too?
Originally posted by Hammy
View Post
2. And I don't think most are necessarily arguing for all one way or another. I think even most people recognize there are cases to be made for kids who left early who might have been better off staying and and some who clearly are in a position in HS they won't get the competition they could benefit from. In the case of Pro-Staying-in-HS crowd, a lot I know don't say no one should go, just that less pressure should be put on these kids at such a young age, when many of them will give up their last years of HS to never end up as a Pro.
3. I realize there is pressure to stay. I have seen it too. But I don't see that pressure as being a worse situation than the pressure to leave, which might not have been your intent, but seems to be your implication.
4. I will admit I am biased towards kids staying because I like HS hockey. When you are a very good player on a team on a perennial power, playing a tough schedule (Edina, Hill Murray, Duluth East, etc) I think in most cases you are not gaining a lot over what you are losing. If you are in bumbleFk, MN and better than everyone in the conference, or if you are the next coming of Sid the Kid playing anywhere, then move on.
A couple examples of things that should enter into the discussion:
1. Players who have left early and and it didn't pan out. One of the reasons for my leaniong towards kids staying was what I saw with one very talented kid in a hurry to move on. There was a Sophomore in my town who I thought was as good a player as the MR Hockey Senior on the team. He left his Junior year for Canada, a little undersized for the rough league. A few concussions later, he's out of hockey. Might have got concussions in HS too, but probably less likely.
2. Not that this can be put on the individual player trying to decide his future, but you must acknowledge the fear of some about the deterioration of HS hockey if the trend of better players leaving early grows. Part of what makes little kids want to play hockey in a lot of small towns in MN is seeing their HS team do well, and maybe make the tourney. The little kids look up to those star players in the tourney, admire them and want to emulate them. There are a lot of sports competing for these kids now compared to 20 years ago. If the stars keep leaving and the quality deteriorates, will as many kids be recruited to the sport in the future in MN? (I'll admit I didn't buy this when I first heard it, but as I've thought about it, it think it might have some merit. Problem is, even if it is valid, you can't expect a kid to stay 'for the good of future hockey in MN'.)
I guess after all this ranting and raving (alcohol hasn't helped clear my thought process), the point is, with the acknowledged pressure to move on early, what is so wrong with an article pointing out the benefits of staying? What is the harm in a guy who has been through what Klatt has saying that being with family and friends a little longer is a good thing too?
Comment