Re: College Hockey amps up war on Canadian major junior....
I hope its quite clear that CHL has issues. I think, in general, any organization which reaps profits off the labors of youth is somewhat problematic -- whether its Junior Hockey; NCAA athletics (note: hockey is a side-show compared to the profit-to-expense ratios of college football and basketall!); or Disney. And I don't think anyone here is defending the CHL, or the junior hockey system in general, as flawless.
What some of us appear to be saying is that the flaws of the CHL or no different than the flaws of any other junior league --- in Canada, the US, or otherwise. Yet the NCAA has drawn a distinction.
I have to thank Alton for that very insightful letters which he attached. I had not read these letters before and its really pretty interesting. Despite its high-minded sounding rhtoric, this letter comes directly from NCAA D-I leadership via USA Hockey, and -- personally -- it smacks of protectionism and a very real fear of competition.
Perhaps the protectionism is warranted . . . eg., protecting the home-grown US hockey developement system. But the removal of the restrictions against the CHL by the NCAA has nothing to do with youth hockey development in the U.S. These letters are first and foremost neatly-worded manifestos of anti-Canadianism -- which is most acutely felt in one part of the nation . . .
This brings it back to the Minnesota issue. The State -- not just the school. UMinn stills carries probably a disproportionate amount of influence in college hockey. Certainly it carries enormous weight in Minnesota state hockey -- which carries enormous weight with USA Hockey.
And this is not a flame-bomb -- honestly. Most people involved in hockey at any national level understand Minnesota's very very very regionalist opinions as to hockey in the US. And openly hostile toward Canadian hockey players.
This hostility does not exist in Michigan, Ohio, or upstate New York hockey -- which has historically always worked closely with Canada. Nor is hockey development in New England similarly afflicted with this anti-Canadian bias.
But in Minnesota, the anti-Canadianism has created a very profitable and successful hockey model. By preaching the evils of Canadians and Canadian hockey at an early age, Minnesota players stay at home, play through the well-developed and well-coached youth system in their own home region. They play high school hockey. They do not travel extensively outside Minnesota -- and rarely into the depth of Canada. There is a significant lack of corporate Club hockey (the backbone of Michigan youth hockey, for instance).
So what does this mean? It means that for many years, Minnesotans carried a disproportionate control of NCAA hockey. NCAA hockey long ago drew the battle lines between itself and the CHL. NCAA hockey long ago made its faustian deal with the Minnesota Hockey Mafia (Jeff Jackson quote) to work feverishly to keep top-end Canadians out of the NCAA -- which by default protects top-end Minnesotans from being relegated.
The CHL is full of top-end Canadians who are forever barred from the NCAA. And this makes Minnesota Hockey very very happy indeed.
This is not about US players flooding to Canada, boy and girls. This is about Canadian players flooding into the US.
Well articulated, Lakerblue. Minnesota carries the big stick in USA Hockey, and always has, and is fiercely protectionist for good reason. Minnesota has a wonderful hockey culture - a model that many Minnesotans would like to see replicated across the USA. Mariucci and his minions built a strong youth system feeding a strong high school system feeding directly into the Gopher program, which has since expanded to other in-state colleges, and more recently, US junior programs. Minnesota was able to build this initially because they had the natural ice advantage over the rest of America, which then also translated into more community rinks/high school rinks. Hockey became "The" winter sport in Minnesota because the infrastructure was right there to support it, and communities embraced hockey as integral to community identity, which fed the growth of high school hockey and community pride.
In the rest of the United States, hockey developed on more a for-profit model vs a true community model, since natural ice and plentiful rinks were simply not available. High school hockey outside Minnesota became quite limited to primarily private schools, due to cost and access. In place of high school hockey, a pay model took over -- travel team youth hockey, private school hockey and junior hockey took up the developmental slack so these non-Minnesota places could keep up.
For schools like Denver and CC with no native talent pools, recruiting Canadians was the only way to be viable and compete with Minnesota in the early years. Mariucci saw that as a huge threat to his state model, and refused to play Denver for years in the 1950, 60s into the 1970s. The WCHA fractured over this issue, and eventually behind heavy Minnesota pressure, Major Junior A players were barred from the NCAA in 1980.
No one can deny that without Minnesota, USA Hockey would never have been able to grow to what it is today. That state has made more of a contribution to American hockey than any other state. The only issue I have with Minnesota is that the development model is perfect for them, but it may not be perfect for other American places that will never have the infrastructure.
I would love to see less protectionist policies in American hockey. Great players should be able to compete anywhere they wish, and that would keep the pressure on all programs at all levels to keep improving. Closing the borders and opening roster spots only to Americans would severly devalue our product, as Americans playing against only Americans would cheat our players from honing their skills against good players from other places.
