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

TimU
01-14-2010, 06:56 AM
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 don't agree with you here. I think you'd find that northern New England is a lot closer to Minnesota culturally than it is to the rest of the "American east." Same for the northern tier of New York.

I would agree with you that the place of outdoor sports in Scandanavian culture could make a big difference. Going back to you original point, I mostly agree about the outdoor ice, too. Minnesota's advantage was partly in having consistent outdoor ice, but lots of places have that. There are a couple of other factors at work. First, as someone else already mentioned, in northern New England the landscape favors alpine skiing - MN was made for hockey. Second, Minnesota doesn't just have ice, it has the combination of outdoor ice and people to skate on it. In MN, there's good weather for skating everywhere (correct me if I'm wrong there). That means everybody skates. There's a bigger talent pool, and no matter where they live, the kids with great potential WILL play hockey and they will be seen. In VT, NH, and ME - and to a large extent, NY - you could skate, but the places with the most consistent skating weather favored skiing, and were also the places where hardly anybody lived. The area in the east most like Minnesota are the northernmost counties in NY, and they develop great hockey players . . . but not in great numbers like MN.

Puck Swami
01-14-2010, 09:11 AM
I don't agree with you here. I think you'd find that northern New England is a lot closer to Minnesota culturally than it is to the rest of the "American east." Same for the northern tier of New York.

.
I think you're right about Northern New England and Northern New York being closer to Minnesota culturally, but as you pointed out, those areas are also sparsely populated and have had far less impact on the development of American hockey than the Boston area.

The overall point was that hockey in this country, for the most part, grew up around two major development models - a community model in Minnesota, and more profit-oriented model in Michigan and Boston, and the reasons for this philosophical split in orientation lies first in the availability of hockey infrastructure, and secondly in the socio-cultural orientations of the majority of populations in each area. Of course there are some outliers that don't fit the two models, but I think for the most part, the dynamic tension between the two different outlooks has had huge ramifications on why things are the way they are.

5mn_Major
01-14-2010, 09:44 AM
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.

Not saying its the right approach but that specific rule is based on the same core directive...value to concept of the student/athlete. And therefore the outcome is the same...it will never be changed.


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!

Yes, but moreso as MN kids get older...to say college. It seems that before that everyone but the very top prospects are not pro-Minnesota or even Minnesota-centric...but rather the state is all that exists. There is nothing else.

TimU
01-14-2010, 10:18 AM
I think you're right about Northern New England and Northern New York being closer to Minnesota culturally, but as you pointed out, those areas are also sparsely populated and have had far less impact on the development of American hockey than the Boston area.

The overall point was that hockey in this country, for the most part, grew up around two major development models - a community model in Minnesota, and more profit-oriented model in Michigan and Boston, and the reasons for this philosophical split in orientation lies first in the availability of hockey infrastructure, and secondly in the socio-cultural orientations of the majority of populations in each area. Of course there are some outliers that don't fit the two models, but I think for the most part, the dynamic tension between the two different outlooks has had huge ramifications on why things are the way they are.

Gotcha - thanks. My comment grew out of the question "Don't VT, NH, and MI have outdoor ice, too?" that was posed to you earlier. I can't disagree with what you say here. And like I said, I'm with you on the "hockey culture" part of it. When everybody plays, the good players will emerge. Where I live, kids have to answer the question "Do I want to play hockey or ski?" when they're very young.

moose97
01-14-2010, 11:43 AM
Wondering if anyone watched last night's WHL Portland Winter Hawks vs. Kamloops Blazers game on Fox Sports NW? In the third period they started talking about the Winter Hawks Ryan Johansen (http://www.winterhawks.com/team/players/?player_id=33), who was apparently offered a scholarship by Northeastern (ranked #16 by Central Scouting (http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=59880)). The announcers went on to praise the CHL by saying that while a kid "may" get one or two, or even three NCAA scholarship offers, if they play Major Junior hockey, they get a one year scholarship to any school they choose for every year of service on the league. "You pick where you want to go. It just doesn't get any better than that." They also noted that every kid on the ice is on a "scholarship."

Fyi, FSNW has another WHL game - Everett Silvertips at Chiliwack Bruins tomorrow (Fri.) night at 9 p.m. CDT. Set your DVR's...

CLS
01-14-2010, 11:58 AM
I think you're right about Northern New England and Northern New York being closer to Minnesota culturally, but as you pointed out, those areas are also sparsely populated and have had far less impact on the development of American hockey than the Boston area.

The overall point was that hockey in this country, for the most part, grew up around two major development models - a community model in Minnesota, and more profit-oriented model in Michigan and Boston, and the reasons for this philosophical split in orientation lies first in the availability of hockey infrastructure, and secondly in the socio-cultural orientations of the majority of populations in each area. Of course there are some outliers that don't fit the two models, but I think for the most part, the dynamic tension between the two different outlooks has had huge ramifications on why things are the way they are.

I think “money based model” might be more accurate than “profit based”, though of course they’re closely related.

New England hockey has been, and to an extent still is, a somewhat elitist sport. For a long time, organized hockey at the high school level was, and condintues to be, dominated by prep schools. And of course since hockey is an expensive sport to play it tended to be the province of the well off.
Public school hockey in Massachusetts is relatively weak. Even the schools in towns in which hockey is a source of community pride don’t have teams that could compete with the better prep schools. Prep school hockey is very strong -- the BC, the Ivies, and to a somewhat lesser extent other HE and ECAC schools have lots of prep school kids on their rosters. The hockey teams at the NESCAC schools (the “Little Ivies” like Middlebury, Amherst College, Trinity, Williams etc.) are dominated by prep school kids.

This is of course related to money. There’s a LOT of money in prep schools -- many have their own rinks (some two). And of course it affects the community-based aspect of your thesis – the kids in the prep schools don’t come from the local community, and by and large the local community doesn’t care about the prep schools. The crowds at prep school games are mostly students, faculty, alumi, and college scouts, not people from the community.

scsutommyboy
01-14-2010, 12:57 PM
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. .

Because American college hockey should be about giving average canadian born hockey players more of a chance to go to college in the United States. Americans are evil and everything wrong with hockey and the world is our fault. :D

WDR357
01-14-2010, 01:25 PM
I think “money based model” might be more accurate than “profit based”, though of course they’re closely related.

New England hockey has been, and to an extent still is, a somewhat elitist sport. For a long time, organized hockey at the high school level was, and condintues to be, dominated by prep schools. And of course since hockey is an expensive sport to play it tended to be the province of the well off.
Public school hockey in Massachusetts is relatively weak. Even the schools in towns in which hockey is a source of community pride don’t have teams that could compete with the better prep schools.
I'd agree this is mostly the case now however 20-25 years ago there were many public high schools with teams that could beat the snot out of the prep schools. Really a shame the way it is now.

Puck Swami
01-14-2010, 03:11 PM
I'd agree this is mostly the case now however 20-25 years ago there were many public high schools with teams that could beat the snot out of the prep schools. Really a shame the way it is now.

That was a blip on the screen as the 1980s Olympic/Bobby Orr boom kids were coming of age and hockey had a huge surge in Boston area popularity. The 1992 US Olympic Team had about 15 of the 22 guys from New England. That tide has long since receded, helped by years of relative Bruins futility, the rise of the Red Sox and Patriots, and the escalating cost of hockey.

jnacc
01-14-2010, 03:59 PM
Wondering if anyone watched last night's WHL Portland Winter Hawks vs. Kamloops Blazers game on Fox Sports NW? In the third period they started talking about the Winter Hawks Ryan Johansen (http://www.winterhawks.com/team/players/?player_id=33), who was apparently offered a scholarship by Northeastern (ranked #16 by Central Scouting (http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=59880)). The announcers went on to praise the CHL by saying that while a kid "may" get one or two, or even three NCAA scholarship offers, if they play Major Junior hockey, they get a one year scholarship to any school they choose for every year of service on the league. "You pick where you want to go. It just doesn't get any better than that." They also noted that every kid on the ice is on a "scholarship."

Fyi, FSNW has another WHL game - Everett Silvertips at Chiliwack Bruins tomorrow (Fri.) night at 9 p.m. CDT. Set your DVR's...

Yup, just what Paul Kelly wanted to see...free advertising for the CHL and their education packages on U.S. TV.........LOL!

kbranch
01-14-2010, 04:11 PM
Sure the other states had natural ice, but not nearly to the same extent as Minnesota. Minnesota has more reliable winter weather than those other places and had way more natural ice in the early years of the sport's development. The community rinks in Minnesota were an outgrowth of natural ice, and as in Canada, the community rink became the cornerstone/gathering place of the community. Minnesota has always had a hockey infrastucture advantage over the rest of the country, and they built a community model that leverages that advantage. You can't blame them for making the best of their advantage - and as a result, a true community hockey culture developed there. That model was simply not replicatable outside of Minnesota, because the infrastucture was not there to support it, and still isn't.


I would agree with you that the place of outdoor sports in Scandanavian culture could make a big difference. Going back to you original point, I mostly agree about the outdoor ice, too. Minnesota's advantage was partly in having consistent outdoor ice, but lots of places have that. There are a couple of other factors at work. First, as someone else already mentioned, in northern New England the landscape favors alpine skiing - MN was made for hockey. Second, Minnesota doesn't just have ice, it has the combination of outdoor ice and people to skate on it. In MN, there's good weather for skating everywhere (correct me if I'm wrong there). That means everybody skates. There's a bigger talent pool, and no matter where they live, the kids with great potential WILL play hockey and they will be seen. ...The area in the east most like Minnesota are the northernmost counties in NY, and they develop great hockey players . . . but not in great numbers like MN.

The feature length documentary Pond Hockey (http://www.hulu.com/search?query=pond+hockey&st=1), available for free viewing at Hulu.com, speaks of the tremendous value that outdoor hockey brings to MN and the hockey world in general. Lots of interviews with NHL and college players. It is a must-see for any real hockey fan and anyone who has ever played the game indoors or out.

WDR357
01-15-2010, 12:21 PM
That was a blip on the screen as the 1980s Olympic/Bobby Orr boom kids were coming of age and hockey had a huge surge in Boston area popularity. The 1992 US Olympic Team had about 15 of the 22 guys from New England. That tide has long since receded, helped by years of relative Bruins futility, the rise of the Red Sox and Patriots, and the escalating cost of hockey.

I wouldn't call it a blip. More so just the development of hockey in the region to this point so that players get more "playing" time than they can achieve in h.s. ranks. It's not going back to the old way of multiple h.s. kids getting drafted each year obviously. Even if the B's win a couple cups in the next few years, there would not be another "blip" in 10-15 years.

Speaking of baseball, I wonder how many people recall Glavine getting drafted by the Kings right out of h.s.? Hard to criticize his choice at this point.

TimU
01-15-2010, 01:03 PM
I wouldn't call it a blip. More so just the development of hockey in the region to this point so that players get more "playing" time than they can achieve in h.s. ranks. It's not going back to the old way of multiple h.s. kids getting drafted each year obviously. Even if the B's win a couple cups in the next few years, there would not be another "blip" in 10-15 years.

Speaking of baseball, I wonder how many people recall Glavine getting drafted by the Kings right out of h.s.? Hard to criticize his choice at this point.

I'm reading "Living on the Black" by John Feinstein right now. Glavine had no intention of playing baseball when he graduated from high school. He and his parents decided that the only way he'd sign a baseball contract was if he was offered a signing bonus big enough to pay for his entire college education and expenses in full, in the event that he didn't make it as a pitcher. Based on his draft placement and typical bonuses at the time, he thought there was no way in the world that would happen, and in fact the first offer from the Braves was something like $60,000 and he told them No thanks. Right up until the day he signed he was fully convinced that he was heading off to play D1 hockey (at UML if I remember correctly).

Lakerblue
01-15-2010, 01:44 PM
I would submit that this question being asked -- at all -- represents a serious weakening of Minnesota Hockey's stranglehold on USA hockey.

There are two reasons Minnesota took such a disproportionate control of USA Hockey.

1) Michigan hockey didn't care what they did in the rest of the country. Michigan hockey was dominated (still is) by Club travel teams, built closely on the Canadian (ne: Ontario, suburban Tornto) model. Michigan gets the CBC, and all Michigan hockey players grow up watching Hockey Night in Canada, and spending many weekends traveling throughout Ontario. There is a tremendously close relationship between Detroiters (and yoopers in the UP) and Canada. There is no animosity towards Canada or Canadians. In fact, Ron McLean called Detroit "Canada's American City." So we (those of us who grew up playing hockey in Michigan) always viewed ourselves as outside of the governing control of USA Hockey. Who cares what a bunch of Minnesotans in Minneapolis say about fighting, face-masks, etc . . . (as examples).

2) Mass (and New England) were-are-dominated by the well financed and self-policing prep-school world. Once again, a kid playing for Thayer could not care less about what a bunch of rule-givers in Minneapolis say about anything. Who cares about Minnesota? Or anything west of the Hudson?

3) Minnesota, on the other hand, always had (has) the aforementioned openly hostile animosity against Canada -- and perhaps even against Michigan and Mass hockey. Minnesota hockey is a highly organized and politicized culture. They have been able to graft this highly political structure onto USA Hockey -- and for better or worse NCAA College hockey.


The reasons for the lessoning of restrictions against the CHL (as arbitrary as they may be) can be traced to Michigan kids getting hurt by Minnesota's anti-Canadian bias ----- because Michigan hockey players and coaches by and large find no fault playing in Canada. And if you can play for the best league, then why not? Michigan Hockey sees the CHL ban as baseless. Minnesotans see the natural progression of youth-high school-college hockey as not just a good model, but as a authoritative moral good. Michigan players see the Minnesota system as almost utterly foreign.

Soooooo . . . . here we sit. The previously unthinkable -- allowing kids to play both CHL and NCAA hockey is being discussed.

The Minnesota Model continues to flex its muscle, and the political leaders at USA Hockey -- while not all Minnesotans -- are certainly political monsters who have risen by playing the Minnesota Model Game. Thus the letters we saw posted here a short while ago.

But cracks are showing in the Minnesota Model even in Minnesota -- the rise of Shattuck-SM; the rise of the private schools; the slow but steady increase of Minnesotans moving to the WHL -- or committing the heretofore unforgivable sin of leaving high school early to play juniors, the USHL or otherwise.

dggoddard
01-15-2010, 03:26 PM
Since USA won the gold two of Canada's most famous talking heads have been bashing the NCAA. Pierre McGuire called NCAA hockey the "soft route" to the NHL. Don Cherry said that the CHL is producing the best players in the world and that the US only won the Gold because "half the players on the team were from the CHL."

The US is going to need to kick Canada's azz a few more times in a row before these guys are going to get the message.

Dirty
01-15-2010, 03:31 PM
Since USA won the gold two of Canada's most famous talking heads have been bashing the NCAA. Pierre McGuire called NCAA hockey the "soft route" to the NHL.

Pierre McGuire should tell John Scott that.

Puck Swami
01-15-2010, 04:01 PM
Pierre McGuire called NCAA hockey the "soft route" to the NHL.

That's funny coming from McGuire -- he was born in New Jersey and coached at Hobart, Babson and St. Lawrence, before getting his NHL assistant gig with Badger Bob Johson at Pittsburgh, who had plenty of college guys on his Stanley Cup teams.

dggoddard
01-15-2010, 04:21 PM
That's funny coming from McGuire -- he was born in New Jersey and coached at Hobart, Babson and St. Lawrence, before getting his NHL assistant gig with Badger Bob Johson at Pittsburgh, who had plenty of college guys on his Stanley Cup teams.
I think McGuire sucks up to the Canadian fans because he desperately wants them to like him. Of course most Canadians think he's a joke. Personally I like him, but he's got some issues with NCAA hockey.

http://ciskie.blogspot.com/2010/01/pierre-mcguires-one-man-crusade-against.html

Larch
01-15-2010, 04:29 PM
3) Minnesota, on the other hand, always had (has) the aforementioned openly hostile animosity against Canada -- and perhaps even against Michigan and Mass hockey. Minnesota hockey is a highly organized and politicized culture. They have been able to graft this highly political structure onto USA Hockey -- and for better or worse NCAA College hockey.

Seriously, how much time have you spent in Minnesota to know all this?

glowingheart
01-15-2010, 11:45 PM
Since USA won the gold two of Canada's most famous talking heads have been bashing the NCAA. Pierre McGuire called NCAA hockey the "soft route" to the NHL. Don Cherry said that the CHL is producing the best players in the world and that the US only won the Gold because "half the players on the team were from the CHL."

The US is going to need to kick Canada's azz a few more times in a row before these guys are going to get the message.

The US won gold because they had a good team, and beat what is left in Major Junior of Canada's top under 20 players. Canada's best under 20 players (Tyler Myers, Steven Stamkos, John Tavares, Evander Kane, Drew Doughty, etc.) like every other year, are already playing with the big boys in the NHL ... except for lockout/NHL strike years where Canada's best is truly represented, and they totally dominate the tournament ... i.e Grand Forks... so don't get too cocky there buddy.