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]

bronconick
01-15-2010, 11:56 PM
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.

I'd really love to read this post, but I can't see it with the two American gold medals won on Canadian soil already this year blocking my eyes.

LtPowers
01-16-2010, 09:30 AM
I'd really love to read this post, but I can't see it with the two American gold medals won on Canadian soil already this year blocking my eyes.

Ooh, I wonder if two more might be coming next month?


Powers &8^]

Dirty
01-16-2010, 09:35 AM
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.

Canada only has one gold medal that counts since Grand Forks is the only time they sent their best team. They should really give all the other medals they won back, because they don't matter.

NCAA watcher
03-18-2010, 09:29 AM
Thank goodness Paul Kelly is targeting the NCAA's stupid system of warehousing kids in the USHL until they are 20.

This week the NHL signed Jake Newton who was held in the USHL til he was 20, so Northeastern just got a single year out of him; U.Mass loses Casey Wellman, who was warehoused til he was 21, so U.Mass gets only 2 years out of him; Marcou who was sent for another USHL season, so U.Mass loses him early; and Matt Irwin, who was kept in juniors til age 20, so U.Mass gets one year out of him.
Same as UNH losing Kessel, having sent him back to juniors til he was 19, and Maine losing NHLer Ted Purcell after one year, having held him back.


All of these kids have NHL talent, yet the colleges defer them until they are 20 or so. The result is that not surprisingly (1) the players reach age 22 and want to move on, meaning teams only get 2 years out of them, rather than 4 years, and (2) it's counterproductive to the overall system, as it makes Canadian kids aged 16 have a choice of immediate glamor of major junior vs. waiting in junior A for 4 years. More kids choose major junior rather than the unpleasant prospect of perhaps getting a scholarship in 4 years.

Puck Swami
03-18-2010, 09:38 AM
Thank goodness Paul Kelly is targeting the NCAA's stupid system of warehousing kids in the USHL until they are 20.

This week the NHL signed Jake Newton who was held in the USHL til he was 20, so Northeastern just got a single year out of him; U.Mass loses Casey Wellman, who was warehoused til he was 21, so U.Mass gets only 2 years out of him; Marcou who was sent for another USHL season, so U.Mass loses him early; and Matt Irwin, who was kept in juniors til age 20, so U.Mass gets one year out of him.
Same as UNH losing Kessel, having sent him back to juniors til he was 19, and Maine losing NHLer Ted Purcell after one year, having held him back.


All of these kids have NHL talent, yet the colleges defer them until they are 20 or so. The result is that not surprisingly (1) the players reach age 22 and want to move on, meaning teams only get 2 years out of them, rather than 4 years, and (2) it's counterproductive to the overall system, as it makes Canadian kids aged 16 have a choice of immediate glamor of major junior vs. waiting in junior A for 4 years. More kids choose major junior rather than the unpleasant prospect of perhaps getting a scholarship in 4 years.



This is all well and good to a point, but with some players leaving early for the NHL anyway, many college coaches do need some flexibility to bring in quality prospects to fill those extra holes beyond the graduating players, and parking kids in the juniors gives them that flexibility. If they don't park those kids, then colleges are going to get caught with their pants down, right?

dggoddard
03-18-2010, 09:40 AM
All of these kids have NHL talent, yet the colleges defer them until they are 20 or so. I agree with you on the warehousing, but can't almost all these "elite" players go to a lesser school and play right away? Isn't that the tradeoff?

Back before DU was winning championships they would often snag players heading to Sconnie, UND or Minnesota by offering them a scholie a year early.

DU grabbed Patrick Wiercioch while Sconnie was trying to park him.

Hokydad
03-18-2010, 09:53 AM
I agree with you on the warehousing, but can't almost all these "elite" players go to a lesser school and play right away? Isn't that the tradeoff?

Back before DU was winning championships they would often snag players heading to Sconnie, UND or Minnesota by offering them a scholie a year early.

DU grabbed Patrick Wiercioch while Sconnie was trying to park him.

where does it say kelley is going after that strategy?

NCAA watcher
03-18-2010, 09:55 AM
Yes, a lot of times it the players agreeing to be parked, in order to be with a preferred program.

One solution is to go back to the pre-1989 rule that a player loses a year of eligibility after age 20, not age 21.
That cuts one year of parking away.
And the junior programs should cut the limits on their older players; I think the USHL is doing that to cater to the NCAAs needs. Once 21 year old "overagers" are no longer welcome, the USHL reduces its limit, meaning the USHL gets younger.

And Puck Swami, going back to one of my basic beliefs, teams should be contracting with these kids, so the kids have definite disclosure about when they are being brought in. If a player needs to be flexible, let that be disclosed in the contract. I think a lot of teams have misled/lied to kids, causing them to be pushed back from when they were promised. The past years we've seen McEachen at Maine, Arnold at Maine, Montpetit, Barnes Hickey, at Wisconsin (those come to mind) be disgruntled because the programs misled them.

Hokydad
03-18-2010, 10:13 AM
Yes, a lot of times it the players agreeing to be parked, in order to be with a preferred program.

One solution is to go back to the pre-1989 rule that a player loses a year of eligibility after age 20, not age 21.
That cuts one year of parking away.
And the junior programs should cut the limits on their older players; I think the USHL is doing that to cater to the NCAAs needs. Once 21 year old "overagers" are no longer welcome, the USHL reduces its limit, meaning the USHL gets younger.

The USHL is a different bird. They only allow 4 overage players and are without question, the youngest league tier one league out there. They focus more on kids who are going to get drafted(18 year olds) and high end D 1 types. As of today, the number has increased to 219 players. The vast majority of these kids get their deals while playing there.


February 17, 2010


(USHL Images)
USHL College Commitments Reach 200As of Friday, with the commitment made by Tri-City Storm forward Tyler Pistone to Army, the USHL reached a landmark number in its already storied history, as the 200th player in a single USHL season was offered the opportunity to play Division I NCAA hockey.

As a result and with nearly two months of the season remaining the USHL has seen nearly two-thirds of its current player base receive a college commitment, a mark unmatched in amateur sports. In so doing, the League continues to carry the banner for the uniquely American model of athletic development that USA Hockey, the NCAA, and the National Hockey League work so hard to support the development of the world's best hockey players, and the creation of a direct pathway to the NHL and beyond through excellence in the classroom, the community, and the rink.

"All of us work hard at this," said Commissioner Skip Prince, "but no one works harder than the players themselves at fulfilling what we, and this approach to hockey, demand of them. It's a privilege for us to help great young players turn into better young men.

As the premiere source of talent for NCAA hockey, the number of collegiate coaches and scouts who routinely attend USHL games right next to their NHL counterparts continues to grow. "It's such a college-friendly league," commented University of Notre Dame assistant coach Andy Slaggert while attending the 2010 USHL All-Star Game in Indianapolis last month. "It is really a partnership with the League's coaches and general managers, as their goal is the same as ours - to get these kids college opportunities. Not just to Notre Dame, but to all of college hockey, the USHL is critical to Division I programs for development of players."

This season, USHL alumni will comprise approximately 30% of all Division I NCAA players hitting the ice on the college campuses across the nation. At the University of Nebraska at Omaha, 20 former USHL players make up the Mavericks' roster, the most League alumni on any team in NCAA hockey, and no less than 38 Division I schools have at least five USHL'ers on their squads.

"And by the way," added Prince "We're not through with our season yet. There will be more congratulations to offer, more scholarships extended to America's most talented hockey players."

bothman
03-18-2010, 10:36 AM
Thank goodness Paul Kelly is targeting the NCAA's stupid system of warehousing kids in the USHL until they are 20.

This week the NHL signed Jake Newton who was held in the USHL til he was 20, so Northeastern just got a single year out of him; U.Mass loses Casey Wellman, who was warehoused til he was 21, so U.Mass gets only 2 years out of him; Marcou who was sent for another USHL season, so U.Mass loses him early; and Matt Irwin, who was kept in juniors til age 20, so U.Mass gets one year out of him.
Same as UNH losing Kessel, having sent him back to juniors til he was 19, and Maine losing NHLer Ted Purcell after one year, having held him back.


All of these kids have NHL talent, yet the colleges defer them until they are 20 or so. The result is that not surprisingly (1) the players reach age 22 and want to move on, meaning teams only get 2 years out of them, rather than 4 years, and (2) it's counterproductive to the overall system, as it makes Canadian kids aged 16 have a choice of immediate glamor of major junior vs. waiting in junior A for 4 years. More kids choose major junior rather than the unpleasant prospect of perhaps getting a scholarship in 4 years.

I think this is a step in the right direction, but will be met with very cold reaction from college coaches who will suddenly have to be that much more accountable.

The flip side of this argument is it will force college coaches to pull more schollies or to tell an upper-classmen that never got over the hump - bye, bye in order to make room for someone who could not be warehoused in Juniors.

The net, net is a positive. In a time of increased candor and transparency, coaches need to be held accountable as do players who simply have to be told that they need to start thinking about a future outside of hockey.

4four4
03-18-2010, 10:46 AM
I agree with you on the warehousing, but can't almost all these "elite" players go to a lesser school and play right away? Isn't that the tradeoff?

Back before DU was winning championships they would often snag players heading to Sconnie, UND or Minnesota by offering them a scholie a year early.

DU grabbed Patrick Wiercioch while Sconnie was trying to park him.

This is absolutely the case. MHSL and its coaches like the current set up if the USHL became younger many highschool coaches would be extremely unhappy. I see the benefits of all the different ideas and there will always be a different and not necessarily a better route to the pros.

streaker
03-18-2010, 11:05 AM
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.

That's the standard ignorant Canadian fall back response. So, does that mean that there weren't any USA kids that could have qualified for the WJT that are in the NHL?

Maybe not the talent you listed, but that's an excuse, and also the sword you live and die by.

Just the same, it took OT in the Olympics for the "best of the best" to beat the USA (full of university kids, eh) in the Gold Medal game. What would your excuse have been if they had lost, for the second time in the tourney on Canadian soil? Worse yet, you and your fellow Canadians probably were smugly proclaiming how the US wasn't really that good, or that they didn't deserve to be there, when deep inside you were really saying, "we dodged a bullet, there". Wait until Russia in four years. The world sure will be laying low for you.

The arrogance never ceases to astound me.

4four4
03-18-2010, 11:41 AM
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.

Wow, lets play the what if game. What if the CHL players were ineligible because they would be considered pros? Two can play at that game.