College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

[Lakerblue]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

Question: What is so evil about the CHL that the NCAA must ban its players?


The NCAA shocked me with this sudden institutional interest in the CHL -- College Hockey issue. I am shocked because the NCAA actually wants to paint itself as the aggrieved party. And it appears that college hockey's fans and supporters are taking up the aggrieved cause.

Many years ago, the NCAA and its college hockey coaches (specifically those coaches in Minnesota and the Ivy Leagues) loathed (and still loath to some degree) the education gap that takes place in college hockey. Many players will leave high school and, instead of enrolling in college, will play a few years in the junior ranks. For example, even today many Minnesotans will still get red-faced-angry over 20-year-old-Canadian-freshmen. The NCAA long ago demonized Major Junior hockey in an effort to force top talented US-born players to play college hockey, usually right out of high school -- because these top-skilled players would waste their time in non-major-junior leagues.

The NCAA -- NOT the CHL -- started this war a long time ago. The NCAA made the random distinction between Junior A and Major Junior as it related to eligibility. I dare and defy anyone with a serious mindset to show the difference between the Alberta Junior League and the WHL in terms of practice time, games played (over 60), legnth of season, living stippend (here is a clue -- the stippend is identical under Canadian law), payment of transportation costs, etc . . . And I defy anyone to tell me the significant differences between the Alberta League, or the USHL, or the NAJHL, or the OHL or the Saskatchewan league.

So what if Major Junior players are granted perks? (Here is another clue: most players get no perks, and most of the parks are totally insignificant). Is there any difference between a Major Junior player getting an apartment paid for than a basketball player getting money from high school boosters? Well -- actually -- the CHL is above board and honest with the perks, while the high school football and basketball perks are usually shady and underhanded.

And I defy a reasonable person to tell me the difference between an athletic scholarship and a free apartment -- a perk is a perk. The NCAA wants to morally dictate what perks are OK, and what perks aren't. Hypocritical bureaucratic nonsense and moralistic grandstanding.

And for what?

You want a solution to losing the best players to Major Juniors?

Drop the phony and discredited distinction between CHL leagues and other junior leagues.

If the NCAA REALLY truly had the best interests of the players at heart, they would allow kids to fully explore their options.

But no -- the NCAA is more interested in a meaningless fight against the CHL, which it is losing. Based upon what?

[Kepler]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

And I defy a reasonable person to tell me the difference between an athletic scholarship and a free apartment -- a perk is a perk. The NCAA wants to morally dictate what perks are OK, and what perks aren't. Hypocritical bureaucratic nonsense and moralistic grandstanding.

And for what?

You want a solution to losing the best players to Major Juniors?

Drop the phony and discredited distinction between CHL leagues and other junior leagues.

If the NCAA REALLY truly had the best interests of the players at heart, they would allow kids to fully explore their options.

It's even worse for the prospective student-athlete's interests, since almost all CHL athletes are done by the time they are 20 (teams are capped on their 21 year olds) and with the evolution of college hockey most D-1 players aren't even starting until they're that age.

The CHL is definitely different than Junior B in that it's a full-immersion of the player in athletics -- the "academics" the CHL offers are a hollow joke, even worse than the worst offending NCAA factory programs. But there should be a compromise position. If players lost a year of NCAA scholly eligibility for each year played in the CHL over the age of 18 that would increase the likelihood of academically-oriented players moving from the CHL to the NCAA and not force a kid to commit to one path or the other at 15. Everybody would win.

[Red Till I'm Dead!]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

Question: What is so evil about the CHL that the NCAA must ban its players?


The NCAA shocked me with this sudden institutional interest in the CHL -- College Hockey issue. I am shocked because the NCAA actually wants to paint itself as the aggrieved party. And it appears that college hockey's fans and supporters are taking up the aggrieved cause.

Many years ago, the NCAA and its college hockey coaches (specifically those coaches in Minnesota and the Ivy Leagues) loathed (and still loath to some degree) the education gap that takes place in college hockey. Many players will leave high school and, instead of enrolling in college, will play a few years in the junior ranks. For example, even today many Minnesotans will still get red-faced-angry over 20-year-old-Canadian-freshmen. The NCAA long ago demonized Major Junior hockey in an effort to force top talented US-born players to play college hockey, usually right out of high school -- because these top-skilled players would waste their time in non-major-junior leagues.

The NCAA -- NOT the CHL -- started this war a long time ago. The NCAA made the random distinction between Junior A and Major Junior as it related to eligibility. I dare and defy anyone with a serious mindset to show the difference between the Alberta Junior League and the WHL in terms of practice time, games played (over 60), legnth of season, living stippend (here is a clue -- the stippend is identical under Canadian law), payment of transportation costs, etc . . . And I defy anyone to tell me the significant differences between the Alberta League, or the USHL, or the NAJHL, or the OHL or the Saskatchewan league.

So what if Major Junior players are granted perks? (Here is another clue: most players get no perks, and most of the parks are totally insignificant). Is there any difference between a Major Junior player getting an apartment paid for than a basketball player getting money from high school boosters? Well -- actually -- the CHL is above board and honest with the perks, while the high school football and basketball perks are usually shady and underhanded.

And I defy a reasonable person to tell me the difference between an athletic scholarship and a free apartment -- a perk is a perk. The NCAA wants to morally dictate what perks are OK, and what perks aren't. Hypocritical bureaucratic nonsense and moralistic grandstanding.

And for what?

You want a solution to losing the best players to Major Juniors?

Drop the phony and discredited distinction between CHL leagues and other junior leagues.

If the NCAA REALLY truly had the best interests of the players at heart, they would allow kids to fully explore their options.

But no -- the NCAA is more interested in a meaningless fight against the CHL, which it is losing. Based upon what?

Ummmmm yes. That is how the NCAA works. They are a holier than thou organization that feels, "it knows best" C'mon, the NCAA makes it difficult for student athletes to even hold a job because they could get favorable treatment. I believe we all know that the NCAA rules are jacked when it comes to the athletes.

Also remember that the NCAA does not tell you how many practices you can have, the mandate how many hours a week you can practice... thank you Rich Rod for that, Now I know!!!

[Almington]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

But there should be a compromise position. If players lost a year of NCAA scholly eligibility for each year played in the CHL over the age of 18 that would increase the likelihood of academically-oriented players moving from the CHL to the NCAA and not force a kid to commit to one path or the other at 15. Everybody would win.

The problem is what happens to the player after they have used up their 2 or 3 remaining years of athletic aid? It would be up to the CHL to finish funding those students education, not the universities. The CHL would have to step up and commit for funding the education of ALL of their former players regardless of how high or how long they play professional hockey before I'd even consider changing the status quo.

[MaizeRage]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

It's amusing that it's always Lake Superior people telling us how clean the NCAA is. Maybe it is up in the OHL's version of Siberia where nobody wants to play, but in the Toronto-area, the league is as dirty as it gets. Same in the WHL. There are some clean programs, but there are also teams paying out five and six figures under the table. It's not worth the headache.

Also: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=59880

12 out of the top 32. Looks like college hockey figured out a way to survive without Watson or Etem or Toffoli.

[MadCityRich]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

It's amusing that it's always Lake Superior people telling us how clean the NCAA is. Maybe it is up in the OHL's version of Siberia where nobody wants to play, but in the Toronto-area, the league is as dirty as it gets. Same in the WHL. There are some clean programs, but there are also teams paying out five and six figures under the table. It's not worth the headache.

Also: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=59880

12 out of the top 32. Looks like college hockey figured out a way to survive without Watson or Etem or Toffoli.

I'm a "Grapes" Cherry fan - sort of - but he ****ed me off Saturday night while watching Hockey Night In Canada. He mentioned the WJC and was kind of "mocking" the Team USA celebration. (I bet NOTHING like that ever went on during a Team Canada celebration .) He named the US kids that are playing MJ in Canada and stated that ..."these kids were developed in Canada" . What? These kids are recent additions to the CHL; they did not grow up in their respective teams' cities. They grew up playing hockey in the U.S.A.

Was Grapes adding more fuel to the fire perhaps?

[Puck Swami]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

I'm a "Grapes" Cherry fan - sort of - but he ****ed me off Saturday night while watching Hockey Night In Canada. He mentioned the WJC and was kind of "mocking" the Team USA celebration. (I bet NOTHING like that ever went on during a Team Canada celebration .) He named the US kids that are playing MJ in Canada and stated that ..."these kids were developed in Canada" . What? These kids are recent additions to the CHL; they did not grow up in their respective teams' cities. They grew up playing hockey in the U.S.A.

Was Grapes adding more fuel to the fire perhaps?

His job is to get ratings, which he does well.

Grapes' primary audience is the older patriotic Canadian hockey fan who has little regard for the kinder, gentler multicultural Canada that has been steadily emerging since the 1970s. Cherry generally likes Americans, but his own country comes first.

[Dirty]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

Cherry can not handle Canada not winning Gold, so he has to make excuses. 99% of the time he is awesome, but when it comes to International competition he's absolutely blinded. If you put a Canada sweater on a bunch of paraplegic four year olds, Cherry would think they would win.

[Lakerblue]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

I repeat myself: What are the dramatic and fundemental differences between Major Junior and Tier I Junior A? All leagues involve playing 60+ game schedules. All leagues involve young men usually living far from home, either in a team-arranged apartment or a team-arranged local family -- both are subsidized (food and rent and small living stippend). All leagues are virtually total immersion into hockey. All leagues -- CHL included -- require players to attend high school (including Grade 13 in Canada). Allegations of enormous signing bonuses are almost entirely urban myths. All leagues require enormous committments from young men and their families in time, travel, and sport-centered dedication. All leagues require mind-numbing amounts of hours in traveling to and from games, on buses over ice-covered roads, from September through April. All leagues place a greater emphasis on hockey play and development rather than on education.

First, I repeat: what makes Major Junior any different from the Tier I Junior A leagues? Or the Tier II or Junior B leagues, for that matter?

Second: Is there any difference between the lifestyle and living arragnements between any junior league and the NCAA hockey experience?

In sum: it appears that the NCAA has drawn a rather arbitrary line over the past four decades in cutting out the CHL from the American college experience. At a minimum, that arbitrary line has kept most of the very best Michigan-born players out of college hockey for no reason other than regionalism and xenophobic pique.

Why can't a kid play Major Junior AND college hockey?

Answer -- and the dirty little secret: It would kill Minnesota high school hockey and Mass prep-hockey as they know it.

[jnacc]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

It's amusing that it's always Lake Superior people telling us how clean the NCAA is. Maybe it is up in the OHL's version of Siberia where nobody wants to play, but in the Toronto-area, the league is as dirty as it gets. Same in the WHL. There are some clean programs, but there are also teams paying out five and six figures under the table. It's not worth the headache.

Also: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=59880

12 out of the top 32. Looks like college hockey figured out a way to survive without Watson or Etem or Toffoli.

Five or six figure salaries under the table there Maize....and you have proof of this or are you just going by what some disgruntled NCAA coach said in order to make excuses for losing his prized recruit? Can you provide any definitive proof that this is occuring?

You do realize that the list that shows 9 out of the 30 non CHL players ranked in the 1st round does not include Euros and that once they are factored in, you are looking at best 6-7 and then of course you can expect a couple of "defections" so what does that leave you?

Answer -- and the dirty little secret: It would kill Minnesota high school hockey and Mass prep-hockey as they know it.

Mass prep hockey is already dead. Right now the only opposition is coming from Minnesota but as I said previously, they do not carry any where near the clout they once did.

No ardent tow the line NCAA supporters will answer your question Blue because they know there is no answer...other than the correct one you already gave.

I am sure, though Lakerblue, that you have been hearing the same things I have and know it is only a matter of a short time before the rules are changed....and yeah we will hear the howls of rage from the old geezers in Minnesota but they are passing on and all the better for it!

[Almington]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

First, I repeat: what makes Major Junior any different from the Tier I Junior A leagues? Or the Tier II or Junior B leagues, for that matter?

The relationship that MJ has with the NHL. The fact that players can both sign an NHL contract and play up to 10 games with the NHL team over the course of the season yet still be returned to their MJ team makes everyone who chooses to play MJ is by default choosing a professional pathway.

MJ is an under-20 professional league with significant ties to the NHL. As long as those ties remain, former full-time MJ players should not be allowed to play NCAA hockey, period.

[jnacc]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

The relationship that MJ has with the NHL. The fact that players can both sign an NHL contract and play up to 10 games with the NHL team over the course of the season yet still be returned to their MJ team makes everyone who chooses to play MJ is by default choosing a professional pathway.

MJ is an under-20 professional league with significant ties to the NHL. As long as those ties remain, former full-time MJ players should not be allowed to play NCAA hockey, period.

So its fine for "amature" players to "taint" themselves by playinng with and against "pros" during international competition? A little bit of hypocracy there, perhaps???

Its fine for prospective NCAA tennis players to hit the pro circuit but not hockey players???? Again, a bit of hypocracy perhaps???

The solution of course is simple, play in the CHL and you are fine, play in the CHL and sign a real pro contract with the NHL and you are not.

[Puck Swami]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

The relationship that MJ has with the NHL. The fact that players can both sign an NHL contract and play up to 10 games with the NHL team over the course of the season yet still be returned to their MJ team makes everyone who chooses to play MJ is by default choosing a professional pathway.

MJ is an under-20 professional league with significant ties to the NHL. As long as those ties remain, former full-time MJ players should not be allowed to play NCAA hockey, period.

College hockey has it's own forms of payment. The vast majority of college players get scholarships that are priced far in excess of what most MJ players get. For example, a Denver player gets tuition, room, board and books that would cost a regular, non-financial aid DU student about $50,000 per year, or $200,000 over four years. Most MJ players get nothing near that in remunerative value. The number of guys who have signed NHL contracts in MJ is only a tiny handful, while 85% of D-I college players are on some kind of schlorship or equivalent financial aid. Most college players do get paid, just not in cash. Most MJ players get $50 a week for laundry and incidentals - a few get more under the table or on an NHL deal, but not many.

Secondly, some current college players do play with salaried professionals at World Championships, World Juniors, etc on US teams. That is not fundamentally different than an MJ player who has played in the NHL playing with his current teammates. Only the venue and uniform are different.

My point here is that I'd support legislation where an MJ player can play a certain number of MJ games (say 15 or 20) without losing his college eligibility. I hate to see kids make a choice at 15,16 or 17 that eliminates them from the college option.

[jnacc]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

.

My point here is that I'd support legislation where an MJ player can play a certain number of MJ games (say 15 or 20) without losing his college eligibility. I hate to see kids make a choice at 15,16 or 17 that eliminates them from the college option.

Why stop there? Why limit it to 15 or 20 games? Why not allow players to play in the CHL and only lose college elgibility if they sign a true pro contract with the NHL/AHL?

Do you not find the current U.S. college eligibility rules to be largely outdated?

[Almington]

Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....

College hockey has it's own forms of payment. The vast majority of college players get scholarships that are priced far in excess of what most MJ players get. For example, a Denver player gets tuition, room, board and books that would cost a regular, non-financial aid DU student about $50,000 per year, or $200,000 over four years. Most MJ players get nothing near that in remunerative value. The number of guys who have signed NHL contracts in MJ is only a tiny handful, while 85% of D-I college players are on some kind of schlorship or equivalent financial aid. Most college players do get paid, just not in cash. Most MJ players get $50 a week for laundry and incidentals - a few get more under the table or on an NHL deal, but not many.

Secondly, some current college players do play with salaried professionals at World Championships, World Juniors, etc on US teams. That is not fundamentally different than an MJ player who has played in the NHL playing with his current teammates. Only the venue and uniform are different.

My point here is that I'd support legislation where an MJ player can play a certain number of MJ games (say 15 or 20) without losing his college eligibility. I hate to see kids make a choice at 15,16 or 17 that eliminates them from the college option.

I see the room and board as a wash between the NCAA and MJ players, the vast majority of both are not paying for either out of their own pockets.

I don't disagree that NCAA players are well compensated for their effort given the value of an education, but they also sign on for additional responsibilities with regards to classwork and academic requirements.

I see playing for their country in international play as being substantially different given that it is for a short term event and that the over-reaching organization is a non-profit entity rather than a for profit entity. Also, it is tempered by an issue of patriotism rather than personal financial gain.

Do I think that the NCAA's current limit is overly harsh, yes I do. But I also recognize that allowing former MJ players into the NCAA is going to significantly set back the talent level and quality of play in the NCAA game and do nothing to promote the student portion of student-athletes.