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

Almington
01-11-2010, 06:21 PM
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
01-11-2010, 06:39 PM
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
01-11-2010, 06:45 PM
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
01-11-2010, 07:04 PM
.

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
01-11-2010, 08:21 PM
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.

Almington
01-11-2010, 08:29 PM
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.

The problem isn't just signing a pro contract it is accepting any financial compensation from a pro level organization or agent.

I have covered my feeling on international play previously.

If a golfer or tennis player wants to pay for his or her entry fees to a tournament and cover all of his/her travel, lodging, and food costs I have no problem with them competing against professionals, the problem is when they gain a financial advantage because of that.

bothman
01-11-2010, 09:22 PM
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.

And here lies the rub...

I generally agree with the above, but let's not paint a rosey picture of NCAA athletics. I can give you many examples (particularly in sports such as hockey and football that parlay both semesters) where players that have competed for the entire 2nd semester or bowl game, and yet never attended a class (Chris Bourque is a prime example).

I just think that if the NCAA is going to hold itself to a higher standard (and I agree with this premise) than it needs to spend as much time policing its own, than worrying what's going on North of the border.

Should Jack Parker and BU be put on probation for turning a blind eye (wink, wink) and playing dumb on Chris Bourque? I don't mean to pick on BU (this happens everywhere), but it's a prominent and local example that will resonate.

I just want some consistency so that all schools in the NCAA are playing by the same rules and that those rules have no wiggle room.

Until this happens, I don't think NCAA hockey has a leg to stand on.

4four4
01-11-2010, 10:22 PM
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.

You keep telling yourself that bud.


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!

How old are you 18? Many of the geezers on this message bored like Happy are under the ages of 40. It will never change. For example, the Minnesota high school league have more pull than you will ever imagine. Also the MIAC coaches have a say and I know they are against MJ players playing in the NCAA.

Almington
01-11-2010, 10:35 PM
And here lies the rub...

I generally agree with the above, but let's not paint a rosey picture of NCAA athletics. I can give you many examples (particularly in sports such as hockey and football that parlay both semesters) where players that have competed for the entire 2nd semester or bowl game, and yet never attended a class (Chris Bourque is a prime example).

I just think that if the NCAA is going to hold itself to a higher standard (and I agree with this premise) than it needs to spend as much time policing its own, than worrying what's going on North of the border.

Should Jack Parker and BU be put on probation for turning a blind eye (wink, wink) and playing dumb on Chris Bourque? I don't mean to pick on BU (this happens everywhere), but it's a prominent and local example that will resonate.

I just want some consistency so that all schools in the NCAA are playing by the same rules and that those rules have no wiggle room.

Until this happens, I don't think NCAA hockey has a leg to stand on.

I agree, that is my point. If they were to crack down on things like that, and that were to hurt the level of play I'd have no problem with the NCAA taking that on (and they should).

My point is that I'd rather that the NCAA try and make sure that all the athletes are committed to actually being students then just making it so that the majority of hockey players are falling back on being students because there dreams of playing pro hockey didn't work out.

Thus, my problem with allowing players to lose a year of eligibility for every year of CHL play. What happens to those students after they have used their two remaining years athletic eligibility? Who funds their final year or two of education if they don't have the means to afford it?

MaizeRage
01-11-2010, 10:53 PM
And here lies the rub...

I generally agree with the above, but let's not paint a rosey picture of NCAA athletics. I can give you many examples (particularly in sports such as hockey and football that parlay both semesters) where players that have competed for the entire 2nd semester or bowl game, and yet never attended a class (Chris Bourque is a prime example).

The NCAA specifically added a rule making players that don't maintain eligibility in the fall semester ineligible for bowl games.

As for kids like Bourque, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the APR.
If teams have too many players fall off pace to graduate, they face scholarship reductions.

bothman
01-12-2010, 12:47 AM
The NCAA specifically added a rule making players that don't maintain eligibility in the fall semester ineligible for bowl games.

As for kids like Bourque, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the APR.
If teams have too many players fall off pace to graduate, they face scholarship reductions.

You are making my point.

Players do maintain eligibility throughout the first semester....when the 2nd semester rolls along, they stop going to class and yet continue to participate in athletics - all 2nd semester games as well as the NCAAs in hockey. That should be unacceptable and there should be consequences and dire ones at that.

There can't be kids bucking the system, only to have teammates bail them out. This is not about the law of averages. It's about holding every kid to a certain standard and ensuring those standards are upheld - I think attending classes in order to maintain eligibility would be a nice first step...:rolleyes:

jnacc
01-12-2010, 04:58 AM
The problem isn't just signing a pro contract it is accepting any financial compensation from a pro level organization or agent.

I have covered my feeling on international play previously.

If a golfer or tennis player wants to pay for his or her entry fees to a tournament and cover all of his/her travel, lodging, and food costs I have no problem with them competing against professionals, the problem is when they gain a financial advantage because of that.

So what financial advantages are CHL players who have not signed a pro contract gaining? The short answer is none! Their so called "compensation" from their respective CHL club is no more than what many Tier II players are receiving.


How old are you 18? Many of the geezers on this message bored like Happy are under the ages of 40.

Is this some very lame *** joke???? Like do you really think posters like Happy matter and will influence the final decision when the NCAA revises its rules? Get real! I was refering to that old washed up club in Minny that use to dictate USA Hockey policy...their day is over....good riddance!

Ralph Baer
01-12-2010, 05:46 AM
I just want some consistency so that all schools in the NCAA are playing by the same rules and that those rules have no wiggle room. Would you like all of the NCAA hockey schools to adopt the limits that the Ivies play under (29 games, later start to the season, no athletic scholarships, no redshirt, whatever else) or do you think that the Ivies should go along with everyone else?

HarleyMC
01-12-2010, 05:49 AM
I was refering to that old washed up club in Minny that use to dictate USA Hockey policy...their day is over....good riddance!

That's a very unnecessary comment.:rolleyes: And your club is...?

bothman
01-12-2010, 09:21 AM
Would you like all of the NCAA hockey schools to adopt the limits that the Ivies play under (29 games, later start to the season, no athletic scholarships, no redshirt, whatever else) or do you think that the Ivies should go along with everyone else?

I'd love to see the Ivies increase the amount of games because these schools are only hurting themselves, both from a recruiting perspective and from a results perspective. The first 3 weeks of the season, particulalry against non-Ivy competition, the Ivies are at a major disadvanatge.

I'm fine if some schools want to be more stringent. My point is that there needs to be some accountability and a minimum set of standards across all schools and again, my starting point that I mentioned previously would be a good place to start.

I find it ironic and laughable when coaches like Jack Parker ***** and moan about MJ recruiting 15 year olds, only to see Jack shun and undermine his own value proposition - the educational component of what NCAA hockey offers.

Lakerblue
01-12-2010, 03:09 PM
How old are you 18? Many of the geezers on this message bored like Happy are under the ages of 40. It will never change. For example, the Minnesota high school league have more pull than you will ever imagine. Also the MIAC coaches have a say and I know they are against MJ players playing in the NCAA.


And the problem is revealed.

I don't think coaches who find fault with the CHL would be nearly as acrimonious if they weren't losing recruits. Remove the arbitrary NCAA restriction towads the CHL, and suddenly coaches like Red Berensen will be pushing top-end talented 18-year olds to play a year or two in MJ -- and have them come the NCAA that much more mature, seasoned, and skilled. What is the difference between a kid playing for the Windsor Spitfires or the Waterloo Blackhawks at age 18-19? Top schools like Michigan, North Dakota, and so forth, all have some recruits one-two years away from coming on campus playing USHL or Canadian Tier I hockey for a year or two to beef up. The only problem some coaches have with MJ is taht they basically lose these kids forever once they pull on a CHL jersey.

So who is making the most noise about the alleged evils of MJ hockey? What organization of coaches and fans stands to lose the most by a lifting of the ban?

Many of the geezers on this message bored like Happy are under the ages of 40. It will never change. For example, the Minnesota high school league have more pull than you will ever imagine. Also the MIAC coaches have a say and I know they are against MJ players playing in the NCAA.

What would happen to Minnesota high-school hockey if the best players all left home at 16 to play in Canada? Minnesotans need look no further than Michigan and see the virtual meaninglessness (in terms of development) of Michigan High School Hockey.

As for playing with pros: I would contend that a kid playing in the WCHA, for example, will face more First and Second round picks on a game-by-game basis than in the CHL. And when draft picks are involved -- especially high first and second round draft picks -- then the NCAA is closely linked with the NHL. Is it truly being posted here that the NCAA hockey programs do NOT work with the NHL? Once again, the argument does not wash -- and the more attempts to argue against the CHL are made, the more the NCAA comes off as looking petty and arbitrary. All --it appears -- in an atttempt to protect Minnesota High School Hockey.

ScoobyFanClub
01-12-2010, 03:14 PM
I don't think coaches who find fault with the CHL would be nearly as acrimonious if they weren't losing recruits. Remove the arbitrary NCAA restriction towads the CHL, and suddenly coaches like Red Berensen will be pushing top-end talented 18-year olds to play a year or two in MJ -- and have them come the NCAA that much more mature, seasoned, and skilled.

Most coaches don't want this - out of fear the players will go - and then never come back. Thus - more players will "give it a try" - and then not return - and college will have even less players than ever.

bothman
01-12-2010, 03:31 PM
What would happen to Minnesota high-school hockey if the best players all left home at 16 to play in Canada? Minnesotans need look no further than Michigan and see the virtual meaninglessness (in terms of development) of Michigan High School Hockey.



I get your point, but you are over-simplifying things. How many Minnesota high school players shun the USNDT program every year? At least 3-4 even though they know that they will be facing better, older competition on a night-in, night-out basis which will better prepare them for a career in hockey / the NHL if they are ultimately lucky enough. Things like family, education, friendship, and loyalty still matter.

As many others have said, the ultimate losers in this equation are those folks that go to MJ or the CHL and don;t make it in hockey (the vast majority). They have sacrificed their futures and if they do ultimately go to college, they will not only have to pay for it out of pocket, but they will also be entering the workforce several years beind their peers.

Many families get this and some kids actually listen to their parents. Imagine that....

jnacc
01-12-2010, 04:26 PM
.

As many others have said, the ultimate losers in this equation are those folks that go to MJ or the CHL and don;t make it in hockey (the vast majority). They have sacrificed their futures and if they do ultimately go to college, they will not only have to pay for it out of pocket, but they will also be entering the workforce several years beind their peers.
....

Right on the money.....in 1985 that is.

I wonder if the problem the NCAA is currently facing (losing top end U.S. born players and seeing a decreasing Canadian talent pool due to the CHL) stems from their denial of changing realities?

The CHL education scholarship program exists....over 500 CHL grads are playing in the CIS today....parents no longer fear a "sacrificed for nothing" future when sending their sons off to the CHL. If they want an education, they can have one at a cost that is very comparable to a NCAA scholarship.

Why should the NCAA exclude its self from a vast talent pool of players for some purposes that are no longer relevant? Some fear the loss of elite players, but the NCAA is losing them anyway. For those that it does acquire, the vast majority leave their programs early.

Allowing CHL players will be a win-win situation for everyone involved with the exception of the CIS.

Larch
01-12-2010, 04:54 PM
I think there's something that people outside of Minnesota still don't understand. Whether it comes from tradition or something else I'm not sure, however, the vast majority of high school hockey players in Minnesota still revere the state high school tournament and the league, if not their own home town. Lakerblue has said "What would happen to Minnesota high-school hockey if the best players all left home at 16 to play in Canada?". The first thing you are going to have to do is convince Minnesota players and their parents that playing in Canada at 16 is going to give them better competition and improve their chances to play in the NHL. Right now, very few people here would buy that argument. Kids in Minnesota are staying through their senior year of High School and still moving on to juniors, whether Canada or American, and colleges and still making it to the NHL. Why would a player go elsewhere when they can get what they want by staying at home, or at least in state?

People have said that Minnesota doesn't have the power it once did and that may be true, I'm not making an argument either way, but Minnesota still has a strong and successful program, and there is power in that, whether somebody likes it or not. I would guess that the people trying to tear it down are jealous of it's popularity and "power" and would like to see it destroyed for no other reason than because it's better than their own system.

To those arguing for CHL players being allowed to play for the colleges, my simple question is; Why? Why does it matter if they are allowed to play for colleges once their done with the CHL? Wouldn't allowing the CHL players who can't hack it there, and get dumped back into the NCAA, make the NCAA a feeder system of sorts to the CHL, and drive down the quality of the NCAA even more? These things ebb and flow, right now the CHL appears to be on top, someday it may slide towards the college ranks.