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

Dirty
12-22-2009, 07:38 PM
Yeah we could, but like our track record isn't all that great lately......you know Iraq and Afghanistan?

Never heard of them. What team do they play for?

Beer Pong Horn
12-22-2009, 07:52 PM
Never heard of them. What team do they play for?

I don't know, but I think they were last week's players of the week for Hockey Rast. Or maybe Hockey Mdille Rast, I forget.

jnacc
12-22-2009, 08:42 PM
Never heard of them. What team do they play for?

Hmmm, I know one plays for a team called quagmire and the other one I think plays for (Where's the) weapons of mass distruction, and I think their coach is Bush (you tried to kill my daddy) Jr.

4four4
12-22-2009, 10:57 PM
Couple flaws in your argument.
While I think 4four4's comment contained a bit of hyperbole, your retort is pointless regarding whatever influence the program does or does not wage.

;)

Runninwiththedogs
12-22-2009, 11:01 PM
Sedevie?

Oui.

Ralph Baer
01-05-2010, 06:48 AM
An interesting article from Toronto http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/new-thrust-in-us-promotes-college-hockey-over-major-junior/article1417826/.

jdevoejr
01-05-2010, 08:00 AM
Wow. I'm at least moderately surprised to read that coming from north of the border. I wonder what kind of reception an article like that gets in Toronto. ( or Quebec or Montreal or Calgary or Parry Sound or Moose Jaw and on & on.)

streaker
01-08-2010, 03:59 PM
Wow. I'm at least moderately surprised to read that coming from north of the border. I wonder what kind of reception an article like that gets in Toronto. ( or Quebec or Montreal or Calgary or Parry Sound or Moose Jaw and on & on.)

Considering that the rest of Canada treats Toronto like an extension of the US, I assume that the article will be dismissed faster than Budweiser.

FreddyFoyle
01-08-2010, 10:15 PM
Considering that the rest of Canada treats Toronto like an extension of the US, I assume that the article will be dismissed faster than Budweiser.

Yup!

solovsfett
01-08-2010, 11:28 PM
Earlier in this thread there was some debate about the college route being a better route for some kids due to the amount of practice time offerered, which lends itself to honing skills that some kids in mj with a billion games and less practice may not have time to work on during the season.

last week I watched part of the UW vs. BC title game from 2006. the announcers at one point mention that the day before the game BC had their 117th or 118th practice of the season... so just a smidge over 1 every 2 days if the season is about 180-200 days long

.02

Lakerblue
01-11-2010, 11:46 AM
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
01-11-2010, 11:57 AM
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!
01-11-2010, 12:29 PM
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.:rolleyes:

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!!! :D

Almington
01-11-2010, 12:31 PM
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
01-11-2010, 12:51 PM
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
01-11-2010, 02:16 PM
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 :rolleyes: .) He named the US kids that are playing MJ in Canada and stated that ..."these kids were developed in Canada" . What? :confused: 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
01-11-2010, 02:30 PM
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 :rolleyes: .) He named the US kids that are playing MJ in Canada and stated that ..."these kids were developed in Canada" . What? :confused: 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
01-11-2010, 02:34 PM
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
01-11-2010, 03:57 PM
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
01-11-2010, 04:59 PM
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!