Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

[buoldtimer]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Interesting commentary in today's (Sun.) Boston Globe on blue chip college hockey recruits de-dommitting from their LOIs to go the major junior route. Doesn't seem to address current players like Jamie Oleksiak tho. Also, there is a veiled reference to NHL clubs possibly encouraging draftees to move but no mention of the role of the so-called family advisors. Still, a pretty good read.

http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/...handed/?page=1

My guess is that MJ executives read an article like this and laugh like hell.

[Happy]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Why would any of you think NCAA had any of that talent to begin with. Most of these kids are using the NCAA as a negotiating tool to get more money from the MJ teams. Also, MJ teams will make a deal with a player, the player will claim they are going to the NCAA, and then many MJ teams will not draft them, but the team with the deal will.

A player in the NCAA cannot sign a contract with an agent, so the agent will always want the kid in MJ so he can lock up the future profits.

it's all very corrupt, so it's best for the NCAA to just not get involved. If you want to watch professional, watch the NHL, AHL and MJ, I want the NCAA to stay amateur, so let these money grubbers leave as far as I am concerned.

[Lakerblue]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

. . . Or perhaps the question is why are Major Junior Leagues losing top players to the NCAA? Who is determining the winner and loser of this alleged war? Colleges show the most visible loss when a player decommits -- but in actuality those de-commitments are relatively few and far between, and are usually attached to much press coverage.

Conversely, many, many, many 15-16 year olds are drafted by the Major Junior who decide instead to play USHL or Provincial Junior A with an eye towards NCAA hockey. I would guess that most of the top Provincial league players were drafted by CHL teams.

And there is MUCH, MUCH more misinformation floating around the US about Major Junior than there is in Canada about the NCAA route. In the U.S., we hear absurd stories of CHL teams making massive under-the-table payments, apartments, cars. None of that is true. BUT we sure do hear a whole lot of cases of NCAA players in FF and BB getting those types of perks, don't we? Isn't it perhaps hypocritical to claim that an NCAA institution is the victim of improper perks and payoffs?

BUt more to the point -- and I've asked this before -- what is the difference between Junior A and Major Junior? They all get a place to live, a living stippend, a food budget, players are drafted, recruited, and traded (trades taking place in mid-year, and the players have no means of objecting other than quitting). There are no salaries for players in either league. Why does the NCAA handcuff itself by declaring one form of junior hockey good -- and another form of junior hockey (with the better palyers, BTW) bad? Why not allow a kid to play CHL until he is 18 or the end of his high school senior year? (I know the answer, Mr. Mariucci and all those who seek to protect Minnesota high school hockey -- I ask only rhetorically).

In full mea culpa, I myself played in North Bay for the Centennials many (many) years ago. (And in the interest of full disclosure, I played for two years -- that is to say I practiced hard for two years, and played about 1/2 the time). And I have a nephew who just recently opted to play CHL hockey this spring. But I am a life-long passionate supporter of LSSU and NCAA hockey. I sort of have feet in both camps. I just think the if you had to choose between two organizations which maybe making questionable recruiting tactics -- my best bet would fall on the NCAA.

[Runsub5]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

I read the Boston Globe article and the major point involved commitment. When 15 and 16 yr. old kids make commitments by signing letters of intent to attend a college or university, they should honor that commitment. Unless, there are are legitimate reasons for backing out. The article also points out that how many 15 and 16 yr. olds know what they really want at that age? The article doesn't mention that perhaps these kids (advisors), are using these signed letters as leverage to negotiate better deals with major jr. teams? Just speculating.

[uaafanblog]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

I read the Boston Globe article and the major point involved commitment. When 15 and 16 yr. old kids make commitments by signing letters of intent to attend a college or university, they should honor that commitment. Unless, there are are legitimate reasons for backing out. The article also points out that how many 15 and 16 yr. olds know what they really want at that age? The article doesn't mention that perhaps these kids (advisors), are using these signed letters as leverage to negotiate better deals with major jr. teams? Just speculating.

Or maybe 15 and 16 year olds don't sign LOI's.

[First Time, Long Time]

. . . Or perhaps the question is why are Major Junior Leagues losing top players to the NCAA? Who is determining the winner and loser of this alleged war? Colleges show the most visible loss when a player decommits -- but in actuality those de-commitments are relatively few and far between, and are usually attached to much press coverage.

Conversely, many, many, many 15-16 year olds are drafted by the Major Junior who decide instead to play USHL or Provincial Junior A with an eye towards NCAA hockey. I would guess that most of the top Provincial league players were drafted by CHL teams.

And there is MUCH, MUCH more misinformation floating around the US about Major Junior than there is in Canada about the NCAA route. In the U.S., we hear absurd stories of CHL teams making massive under-the-table payments, apartments, cars. None of that is true. BUT we sure do hear a whole lot of cases of NCAA players in FF and BB getting those types of perks, don't we? Isn't it perhaps hypocritical to claim that an NCAA institution is the victim of improper perks and payoffs?

BUt more to the point -- and I've asked this before -- what is the difference between Junior A and Major Junior? They all get a place to live, a living stippend, a food budget, players are drafted, recruited, and traded (trades taking place in mid-year, and the players have no means of objecting other than quitting). There are no salaries for players in either league. Why does the NCAA handcuff itself by declaring one form of junior hockey good -- and another form of junior hockey (with the better palyers, BTW) bad? Why not allow a kid to play CHL until he is 18 or the end of his high school senior year? (I know the answer, Mr. Mariucci and all those who seek to protect Minnesota high school hockey -- I ask only rhetorically).

In full mea culpa, I myself played in North Bay for the Centennials many (many) years ago. (And in the interest of full disclosure, I played for two years -- that is to say I practiced hard for two years, and played about 1/2 the time). And I have a nephew who just recently opted to play CHL hockey this spring. But I am a life-long passionate supporter of LSSU and NCAA hockey. I sort of have feet in both camps. I just think the if you had to choose between two organizations which maybe making questionable recruiting tactics -- my best bet would fall on the
NCAA.

So no CHL kids or their families get under the table payments?
You can prove that?
Sorry where there is smoke, there is fire.
As for the big difference, CHL kids can play in that league and be signed to an NHL contract, not allowed in the NCAA, and I don't believe it's allowed in Junior A either.
You can't play against "pros" and play that sport in the NCAA.

[jnacc]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

So no CHL kids or their families get under the table payments?
You can prove that?
Sorry where there is smoke, there is fire.
.

The better question is do you or ,more importantly, Paul Kelly have any proof that they do? I am sure there are about 1/2 dozen OHL clubs that would kill for that proof. The reality is that it is much easier for Paul Kelly to justify losing players because of "big money" influence than real reasons such as both the high end players and their NHL clubs feeling the CHL is a better route for developmental purposes.

[First Time, Long Time]

The better question is do you or ,more importantly, Paul Kelly have any proof that they do? I am sure there are about 1/2 dozen OHL clubs that would kill for that proof. The reality is that it is much easier for Paul Kelly to justify losing players because of "big money" influence than real reasons such as both the high end players and their NHL clubs feeling the CHL is a better route for developmental purposes.

No I can't prove it.
Paul Kelly I believe was threatened with a lawsuit for saying it by Sarnia I think and then nothing came of it.
As for it being a "better" route, I think that depends on the individual player.

[Lakerblue]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

I guess I'd like to see some examples of CHL kids who have been paid, either in cash or goodies. Any names? Any expose from the Globe and Mail exposing such tactics in the CHL? Because we all know darned well there are lots and lots of stories of NCAA abuses. Its easy to start a rumor -- but if that is all College Hockey has to fight back with, then no wonder they are losing this alleged recruiting war.

When I was in the OHL, I didn't know anybody who had jack squat for money or cars. We all had to go to school, even Americans like myself had to go to Grade 13. After that, at least in North Bay and most other teams, the over-agers had to attend college (at North Bay the team required at least 9 credit hours . . . and I am not so naive to beleive this had anything do with education -- going to classes at school kept the boys busy during the day before practice). At the time, most of the kids I played with were either not interested in college, or had bad experiences with American and college coaches. (A good friend of mine played in Ontario B for the Siskins and Jerry York brought him to BGSU. York left a year later, and the new BGSU coach was rabidly anti-Canadian). I was told by one particular college assistant coach (D-III . . .like I said I was BARELY at the CHL level), when hearing of my choice to move to North Bay because I wanted to play under Bert Templeton, "The CHL is for retards and beer puking Canadians anyhow."

It amazes me that the NCAA can take such an absurd stand against the CHL with a straight face. What is worse, are the legions of NCAA fans actually believing what these fools are peddling.

And I go back to my original pleading: Who has been paid by the CHL?

And as for advisors: You know why they have unpaid advisors? Because of the NCAA. This isn't some mysterious Canadian entity pushing kids solely to the CHL on behalf of agents. If the NCAA rule did not exist, there would be no reason for a "Family Advisor," as most talented Canadian kids would be represented by agents without any fear of NCAA sanction. So the family advisors are solely working at the behest of agents on behalf of the CHL? Like the family advisors who sent Toews and Oshie to North Dakota? Or the family advisors who send kids, every year, to the NCAA? What is wrong with a family getting honest advice? If the NCAA didn't have its absurd, xenophobic "high school hockey biased" anti-CHL rule, there would be no need for family advisors.

Geez, you guys are tough on 15 year olds and their families. NCAA hockey is an amazing product. I prefer the passion and excellence of the NCAA far beyond the relatively lower level palyed by 17-18 year old kids in the CHL. Its not even the same equation -- its apples and oranges. As a rule, the college palyers are older, faster, bigger. 16 and 17 and 18 year olds don't generally play college hockey -- but most OHL teams are 85% 17-18 year olds. You can have a few under-agers (16 year olds) and a few over-agers (19 year olds). There is no direct competition. And there would not be any competition if the NCAA grew up.

Just my opinion, of course.

[AVFC]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

. . . Or perhaps the question is why are Major Junior Leagues losing top players to the NCAA? Who is determining the winner and loser of this alleged war? Colleges show the most visible loss when a player decommits -- but in actuality those de-commitments are relatively few and far between, and are usually attached to much press coverage.

Conversely, many, many, many 15-16 year olds are drafted by the Major Junior who decide instead to play USHL or Provincial Junior A with an eye towards NCAA hockey. I would guess that most of the top Provincial league players were drafted by CHL teams.

And there is MUCH, MUCH more misinformation floating around the US about Major Junior than there is in Canada about the NCAA route. In the U.S., we hear absurd stories of CHL teams making massive under-the-table payments, apartments, cars. None of that is true. BUT we sure do hear a whole lot of cases of NCAA players in FF and BB getting those types of perks, don't we? Isn't it perhaps hypocritical to claim that an NCAA institution is the victim of improper perks and payoffs?

BUt more to the point -- and I've asked this before -- what is the difference between Junior A and Major Junior? They all get a place to live, a living stippend, a food budget, players are drafted, recruited, and traded (trades taking place in mid-year, and the players have no means of objecting other than quitting). There are no salaries for players in either league. Why does the NCAA handcuff itself by declaring one form of junior hockey good -- and another form of junior hockey (with the better palyers, BTW) bad? Why not allow a kid to play CHL until he is 18 or the end of his high school senior year? (I know the answer, Mr. Mariucci and all those who seek to protect Minnesota high school hockey -- I ask only rhetorically).

In full mea culpa, I myself played in North Bay for the Centennials many (many) years ago. (And in the interest of full disclosure, I played for two years -- that is to say I practiced hard for two years, and played about 1/2 the time). And I have a nephew who just recently opted to play CHL hockey this spring. But I am a life-long passionate supporter of LSSU and NCAA hockey. I sort of have feet in both camps. I just think the if you had to choose between two organizations which maybe making questionable recruiting tactics -- my best bet would fall on the NCAA.

The answer is the discrepancy of talent lost to talent gained. College hockey deprives the CHL of bottom six talent whereas the CHL deprives the NCAA of first round NHL draft picks. One has a much greater impact than the other. Why exactly did your nephew opt for the CHL?

[jnacc]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

No I can't prove it.
Paul Kelly I believe was threatened with a lawsuit for saying it by Sarnia I think and then nothing came of it.
As for it being a "better" route, I think that depends on the individual player.

Again..where is your proof? An alleged threatened law suit hardly constitutes any sort of definitive proof of misdeeds by CHL teams. The fact is that if Paul Kelly did indeed have any sort of proof, such material would have been given to both public entities and CHL clubs.....no such proof exists of course and Paul Kelly et al are simply using lame excuses as to why the NCAA is consistently losing top prospects to the CHL.

[First Time, Long Time]

Again..where is your proof? An alleged threatened law suit hardly constitutes any sort of definitive proof of misdeeds by CHL teams. The fact is that if Paul Kelly did indeed have any sort of proof, such material would have been given to both public entities and CHL clubs.....no such proof exists of course and Paul Kelly et al are simply using lame excuses as to why the NCAA is consistently losing top prospects to the CHL.

It was actually Jeff Jackson and the suing parties were to be Kitchner and Windsor after Cam Fowler was signed.
As for proof, unfortunately the article doesn't exist online anymore as the Windsor Star doesn't keep them around that long.
I can't prove they are getting paid, but you also can't prove they aren't.
For me though, as I said, the bigger issue is the CHL allows players under NHL contract to play.
No NCAA player can do that and that is what makes them ineligble.
You can't play against "pros" and then go play that same sport in the NCAA.
St. Cloud lost a player from Switzerland because of that.
He wasn't being paid, but he was playing in a league where players were being paid and that made him ineligible.

[Happy]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

The better question is do you or ,more importantly, Paul Kelly have any proof that they do? I am sure there are about 1/2 dozen OHL clubs that would kill for that proof. The reality is that it is much easier for Paul Kelly to justify losing players because of "big money" influence than real reasons such as both the high end players and their NHL clubs feeling the CHL is a better route for developmental purposes.

many NHL clubs want to get the kid under contract, so they can control him, and they can't do that in the NCAA. Can you imagine how much happier Phoenix would have been to have had Wheeler in MJ, instead of losing him to free agency through college.

[JDUBBS1280]

The reality is that it is much easier for Paul Kelly to justify losing players because of "big money" influence than real reasons such as both the high end players and their NHL clubs feeling the CHL is a better route for developmental purposes.

Considering there are roughly the same number of players in the NHL who went the NCAA route as there are players who went the CHL route, I would say this comment is categorically false.

[solovsfett]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Considering there are roughly the same number of players in the NHL who went the NCAA route as there are players who went the CHL route, I would say this comment is categorically false.

thank you.

but I think we all know what jnacc's response to this will be