PDA

View Full Version : College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14

cetihcra
01-13-2010, 04:45 PM
Swami,

They don't and didn't have outdoor ice in Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, or Michigan? :confused:

If they did, why did Minnesota have a natural advantage over those other places for the growth of a particular system?

I grew up playing hockey in VT, and i'll tell you, they don't have many outdoor rinks (or indoor rinks, for that matter), and skiing is #1. Probably skated on just about every rink in the state (through the early 90's), and only once skated on an outdoor rink.

r

Puck Swami
01-13-2010, 04:53 PM
There is another socio-cultural rationale that helps underpin the Minnesota infrastructure advantage in hockey.

The dominant immigration history of Minnesota is people coming in from Scandinavia -- cultures that not only value cold weather sport, but also a certain egalitarianism and fairness, that itself comes from having to share resources to survive in a hostile winter environment and an economy that started with the fur trade, which hinged on handshakes and fairness. Minnesota is more like Sweden and Canada than Massachusetts, which has an older immigration history based on being first in America. Survival in the American east was based on private enterprise and profit, rather than eglalitarianism and fairness.

That Minnesotans would focus their hockey energy on their communities over profit and exclusivity is part of what makes Minnesota different from the East, where profit and exclusivity is far stronger driving life force.

scsutommyboy
01-13-2010, 05:07 PM
At the division 1 level, you can give academic scholarships and athletic scholarships to the same player and not have the academic count towards the 18 full equivalents...

edit:
I do know from conversations I've had with coaches that most people would be surprised with the actual breakdown on a roster...full rides aren't as common as you might think

The first thing any good program does is see if a player can get need based money because of a families financial situation or any schollie for good grades or test score's. Then a coach sees what he needs to give a kid. Most kids on any of the schools in Minnesota don't get full rides. Tuition is low enough for most kids where they don't need to give more than 90%.

jnacc
01-13-2010, 05:09 PM
There is another socio-cultural rationale that helps underpin the Minnesota infrastructure advantage in hockey.

The dominant immigration history of Minnesota is people coming in from Scandinavia -- cultures that not only value cold weather sport, but also a certain egalitarianism and fairness, that itself comes from having to share resources to survive in a hostile winter environment and an economy that started with the fur trade, which hinged on handshakes and fairness. Minnesota is more like Sweden and Canada than Massachusetts, which has an older immigration history based on being first in America. Survival in the American east was based on private enterprise and profit, rather than eglalitarianism and fairness.

That Minnesotans would focus their hockey energy on their communities over profit and exclusivity is part of what makes Minnesota different from the East, where profit and exclusivity is far stronger driving life force.

So...Minnesota is what we think Canada is, that being socialist in nature where the "least of our brothers" are looked after and Canada is really like Wall Street; espousing competition, profit and free market principles where there are winners and losers.

To put in a larger context...the Canadian hockey model is hyper capitilism with survival of the fittest and the Minny hockey model is nurture the weak so they can run with the strong.

Sorry swami I aint buying that.

Puck Swami
01-13-2010, 05:18 PM
The first thing any good program does is see if a player can get need based money because of a families financial situation or any schollie for good grades or test score's. Then a coach sees what he needs to give a kid. Most kids on any of the schools in Minnesota don't get full rides. Tuition is low enough for most kids where they don't need to give more than 90%.

That's where having in-state players getting a further break on in-state tuition makes it far easier to split scholarships and build roster depth without creating undue hardship on families. Minnesota schools, Wisconsin and North Dakota not only have an advantage with in-state students going to state schools, but they also have tuition reciprocity with each other, where a Minnesota kid going to school in North Dakota or Wisconsin (or vice versa) gets a lower out of state rate, which helps to reduce the load.

Private schools like Denver and CC need to use their scholarships more as full-rides, since they don't get tuition breaks. They also have to bring most players in from a farther distance, which makes it harder to break up scholarships.

StateOfGophers
01-13-2010, 05:23 PM
There is another socio-cultural rationale that helps underpin the Minnesota infrastructure advantage in hockey.

The dominant immigration history of Minnesota is people coming in from Scandinavia -- cultures that not only value cold weather sport, but also a certain egalitarianism and fairness, that itself comes from having to share resources to survive in a hostile winter environment and an economy that started with the fur trade, which hinged on handshakes and fairness. Minnesota is more like Sweden and Canada than Massachusetts, which has an older immigration history based on being first in America. Survival in the American east was based on private enterprise and profit, rather than eglalitarianism and fairness.

That Minnesotans would focus their hockey energy on their communities over profit and exclusivity is part of what makes Minnesota different from the East, where profit and exclusivity is far stronger driving life force.
I've always thought that a lot of the issues come from similarity breeding contempt. Both areas are proud of their hockey history and have some sort of protectionism built into their systems.

Puck Swami
01-13-2010, 05:23 PM
So...Minnesota is what we think Canada is, that being socialist in nature where the "least of our brothers" are looked after and Canada is really like Wall Street; espousing competition, profit and free market principles where there are winners and losers.

To put in a larger context...the Canadian hockey model is hyper capitilism with survival of the fittest and the Minny hockey model is nurture the weak so they can run with the strong.

Sorry swami I aint buying that.

I don't think you read my post properly.

Minnesota and Western Canada are quite similar community hockey models. It's more community based hockey, where they don't let cost stand in the way of participation, and it's more about the greater good.

In the America East, hockey costs a lot more becuase the rinks are more about profit than serving the community. And in even places like Toronto where there are more players than places for them, hockey is far more expensive.

Puck Swami
01-13-2010, 05:25 PM
I've always thought that a lot of the issues come from similarity breeding contempt. Both areas are proud of their hockey history and have some sort of protectionism built into their systems.

Good point. Don Cherry would have made a great Minnesotan.:D

StateOfGophers
01-13-2010, 05:30 PM
Well Minnesota already has Doug Woog in that role, but I guess two xenophobes are better than one.

scsutommyboy
01-13-2010, 05:33 PM
I don't think you read my post properly.

Minnesota and Western Canada are quite similar community hockey models. It's more community based hockey, where they don't let cost stand in the way of participation, and it's more about the greater good.

In the America East, hockey costs a lot more becuase the rinks are more about profit than serving the community. And in even places like Toronto where there are more players than places for them, hockey is far more expensive.

How much does a players family have to pay out east per month for a kid who plays traveling hockey? Let's say a squirt-bantam level (4th-9th grade).

5mn_Major
01-13-2010, 05:39 PM
This hostility does not exist in Michigan, Ohio, or upstate New York hockey -- which has historically always worked closely with Canada. Nor is hockey development in New England similarly afflicted with this anti-Canadian bias.

But in Minnesota, the anti-Canadianism has created a very profitable and successful hockey model. By preaching the evils of Canadians and Canadian hockey at an early age, Minnesota players stay at home, play through the well-developed and well-coached youth system in their own home region. They play high school hockey.

I think there are some slanted perspectives here. Sure there were positions against DU's use of Canadians. But much of that from what I"ve seen was also tied to age.

The point is that since the 1960s, Minnesota hockey is less anti Canadian than in a belief that US hockey is good enough. Minnesotans don't really care about Canadian hockey (until the pros come into sight). And I do agree that the general point of view has been contagious helping to drive hockey throughout the country. But to say it was or is based on a feeling of anti Canadian misses the point of whats going on by a mile IMO. And growing up emersed in youth hockey in MN...you just have no visibility of Canadian hockey, rather than a hatred of it.

Puck Swami
01-13-2010, 05:48 PM
I And growing up emersed in youth hockey in MN...you just have no visibility of Canadian hockey, rather than a hatred of it.

That Minnesota 'lack of visibility' of Canadian hockey didn't happen by accident.

There are a lot of Minnesota hockey leaders who have been working very hard over the years to keep it that way.

Craig P.
01-13-2010, 06:18 PM
The why not is because the NCAA has a platform it adheres to. Specifically, this is not about the athlete...but the student athlete. And this is not about hockey...but about tens of sports. The NCAA will never break a core rule for one sport...just to make it more competitive. It has too much at stake...its platform which is a directive from the universities it represents.

The CHL prohibition is a very specific rule in the D1 manual. It is not a "core rule" that applies to multiple sports. Moreover, during the now-defunct amateurism reform, the reform would have wiped out the CHL prohibition, and college hockey arranged with the people writing the reform to have it reinstated.

Runninwiththedogs
01-13-2010, 08:12 PM
Those who wish to play pro hockey as soon as possible will no longer be choosing the NCAA route anyway.....something that is starting to happen. The fact that there are hundreds of former CHL players playing University hockey in Canada suggests that not all CHL players are intent on going pro as soon as possible. The number of CHL players utilizing their education packages and foregoing a pro career is rising year after year....it would be nice to be able to tap into that talent.

What talent? Please. What part of my post was unclear to you? Why would I want the CHL's leftovers on my team? I feel like you just read what you want to read and then respond with whatever you want to say, not an actual response.



As for the rest...those that are drafted by NHL teams (in the lower rounds) where the vast majority will never get a whiff of NHL play, the NCAA could provide the neccessary safety blanket that so many of them crave....why should they be going on to play CIS hockey when they could be playing here???

Please explain to me why I should want my team to become a safety blanket to guys who will never play in the NHL? What is at all attractive about that? I might as well go watch rec league hockey. I realize that most players in ANY league will not play in the NHL. But I'd rather watch some of the cream of the crop play at tUMD for a couple years than never hear of them because they're playing in Canada, and I support any effort the NCAA makes to try to gain more leverage.

What are you trying to sell me on, here? Like I said before, I'm not a hockey mom making sure my little boy has every opportunity he could possibly have. I'm not a general manager of an NHL team trying to protect the talent I've drafted.



An Athletic Scholarship can be worth $200,000 (tax free) to the student and should yield the average recipient $1,000,000 in extra income over a lifetime. It stands to reason that it would benefit the USA to give as many of these opportunities as possible to American kids.

Except on the University of Minnesota-Duluth's women's team!

jnacc
01-13-2010, 08:33 PM
What talent? Please. What part of my post was unclear to you? Why would I want the CHL's leftovers on my team? I feel like you just read what you want to read and then respond with whatever you want to say, not an actual response.
!

Those "CHL left overs" as you call them could make a mighty fine contribution to your team. They are not rec level players but high end skilled players who may not play in the NHL but will play in the minors or Europe....just like the vast majority of current NCAA players!


Please explain to me why I should want my team to become a safety blanket to guys who will never play in the NHL? What is at all attractive about that?

What are most NCAA teams now? Furthermore what makes you think that those few players that do choose the NCAA before becoming NHL players will turn their back on U.S. college hockey? Why wouldn't they play in the CHL until the age of say 19 and then spend a year or two in the NCAA? What makes current CHL players any different from high end USHL or NTDP players who know they have a future in the NHL but are still choosing college?

In short what is your fear based on?

Almington
01-13-2010, 09:20 PM
Those "CHL left overs" as you call them could make a mighty fine contribution to your team. They are not rec level players but high end skilled players who may not play in the NHL but will play in the minors or Europe....just like the vast majority of current NCAA players!

What are most NCAA teams now? Furthermore what makes you think that those few players that do choose the NCAA before becoming NHL players will turn their back on U.S. college hockey? Why wouldn't they play in the CHL until the age of say 19 and then spend a year or two in the NCAA? What makes current CHL players any different from high end USHL or NTDP players who know they have a future in the NHL but are still choosing college?

In short what is your fear based on?
Other then all those former NCAA players who are currently in the NHL? Allowing former CHL players into the NCAA would turn the NCAA into what the CIS is now. Why would any NCAA fan want that?

If those players in your case who would be CHL left over are not any better then the average player in college how, I fail to see how trading the top end players currently in the NCAA for average player who wasn't good enough to make the AHL after 2 or 3 season in the CHL will make the NCAA game better. The fear is based on reality. NONE of the 1st or 2nd round picks, and only those higher round picks who don't develop enough would end up in college hockey. No NHL caliber player is going to leave his MJ team to go player in a lower talent level like the NCAA would then become.

Shirtless Guy
01-13-2010, 09:55 PM
Why couldn't there be a better allowance for players that choose to play CHL at 16-19 instead of saying they can't play in the NCAA at all?

Almington
01-13-2010, 10:40 PM
Why couldn't there be a better allowance for players that choose to play CHL at 16-19 instead of saying they can't play in the NCAA at all?

You have to draw the line somewhere. Anywhere you draw that line is going to seem quite arbitrary. At least the current rules are cut and dry.

4four4
01-13-2010, 10:59 PM
That Minnesota 'lack of visibility' of Canadian hockey didn't happen by accident.

There are a lot of Minnesota hockey leaders who have been working very hard over the years to keep it that way.

..and it will continue for ever.


And growing up emersed in youth hockey in MN...you just have no visibility of Canadian hockey, rather than a hatred of it.

I agree Minnesota kids have very little visibilty to Canadian hockey so much so that the average kid in Minnesota doesn't even think about Canadian hockey. In a nut shell Minnesotans are not anti-Canadian but pro-Minnesota!


I don't think you read my post properly.

Minnesota and Western Canada are quite similar community hockey models. It's more community based hockey, where they don't let cost stand in the way of participation, and it's more about the greater good.

In the America East, hockey costs a lot more becuase the rinks are more about profit than serving the community. And in even places like Toronto where there are more players than places for them, hockey is far more expensive.

100% correct. For example, we have the Mighty Ducks state funded program. Cleary, the state of Minnesota government wants the community involved with Minnesota hockey. We the Minnesota tax payers are paying for 18 million dollars which goes towards new arenas and outdoor rinks.

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/ducks.asp



The dominant immigration history of Minnesota is people coming in from Scandinavia -- cultures that not only value cold weather sport, but also a certain egalitarianism and fairness, that itself comes from having to share resources to survive in a hostile winter environment and an economy that started with the fur trade, which hinged on handshakes and fairness. .
Not to nitpick but the state of Minnesota's number one nationality by far is Germans. Otherwise your comments are 100% correct. It is obvious your Minnesota relatives have taught you well.;) :p


That model was simply not replicatable outside of Minnesota, because the infrastucture was not there to support it, and still isn't.

I don't believe another state in the union can replicate what the state of Minnesota has done. Maybe Wisconsin but they need more vocal hockey leaders.


The only issue I have with Minnesota is that the development model is perfect for them, but it may not be perfect for other American places that will never have the infrastructure.

How is this an issue? Does the state of Minnesota shove their infrastructure model down another states throat?

EDIT: As related on the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission website, over $18 million was awarded to help communities build new ice facilities, producing a net gain of 61 new sheets of ice statewide

jnacc
01-14-2010, 05:00 AM
Other then all those former NCAA players who are currently in the NHL? Allowing former CHL players into the NCAA would turn the NCAA into what the CIS is now. Why would any NCAA fan want that?

If those players in your case who would be CHL left over are not any better then the average player in college how, I fail to see how trading the top end players currently in the NCAA for average player who wasn't good enough to make the AHL after 2 or 3 season in the CHL will make the NCAA game better. The fear is based on reality. NONE of the 1st or 2nd round picks, and only those higher round picks who don't develop enough would end up in college hockey. No NHL caliber player is going to leave his MJ team to go player in a lower talent level like the NCAA would then become.

We are already losing the very elite top end players and I do not see that trend reversing. The NCAA has, however, managed to keep many quality players (call them 2nd tier elite players if you will) who will go on to the NHL eventually. Most of those players happen to be U.S. born. They are more inclined to play college hockey.

What makes you think that if they played in the CHL for 2 or even 3 years that they would turn their backs on college hockey entirely??