USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
- Thread starter MMECT
- Start date
- Status
GopherBigGuy911
The one you hate to love
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
I would be in favor of an NHL min age limit being 20.5 years, that would pretty much gaurantee 3 full years of college or junior play. I would like to also like to see a Pro Draft instead of a prospect draft.
I would be in favor of an NHL min age limit being 20.5 years, that would pretty much gaurantee 3 full years of college or junior play. I would like to also like to see a Pro Draft instead of a prospect draft.
Terrierbyassociation
Fight Cancer, Wherever You Find It
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
I usually love what you write but this is just wrong. Have you seen every other league?
NFL, MLB, NBA, they all have age requirements or requirements based on how many years you are outside of high school.
Sure they could see a restraint of trade lawsuit, one which would be lost by whoever brought it against the NHL or NCAA.
But I don't want a limit. Some guys are ready at 18 for the NHL.
I usually love what you write but this is just wrong. Have you seen every other league?
NFL, MLB, NBA, they all have age requirements or requirements based on how many years you are outside of high school.
Sure they could see a restraint of trade lawsuit, one which would be lost by whoever brought it against the NHL or NCAA.
But I don't want a limit. Some guys are ready at 18 for the NHL.
GopherBigGuy911
The one you hate to love
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
The NCAA would have no say in the leaving early argument.... It would have to come from the NHL and new CBA..... I think the older players in the NHL would go for it because it would make them more viable and valuable to an orgnaization. Plus it would make the draft much deeper, teams would know what they are getting when they draft a player and not just living on hope and prayer that their draftee will turn out.
The NCAA would have no say in the leaving early argument.... It would have to come from the NHL and new CBA..... I think the older players in the NHL would go for it because it would make them more viable and valuable to an orgnaization. Plus it would make the draft much deeper, teams would know what they are getting when they draft a player and not just living on hope and prayer that their draftee will turn out.
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
MLB doesn't have an age restriction. Joe Mauer got drafted right out of high school.
MLB doesn't have an age restriction. Joe Mauer got drafted right out of high school.
ajoyce02
Cake or Death?
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
No age requirements in MLB. The Twins have some hot shot 16 yr old in their system right now.
No age requirements in MLB. The Twins have some hot shot 16 yr old in their system right now.
Puck Swami
New member
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
The lawsuits will continue as they have for years like Maurice Clarett's case in 2003. To date, collective bargaining has tended to trump anti-trust and restraint of trade agendas. But the day may come when the legal climate turns a different way. Some good lawyer may just win the case that may strike down the legality of player drafts and age requirements...
The lawsuits will continue as they have for years like Maurice Clarett's case in 2003. To date, collective bargaining has tended to trump anti-trust and restraint of trade agendas. But the day may come when the legal climate turns a different way. Some good lawyer may just win the case that may strike down the legality of player drafts and age requirements...
Terrierbyassociation
Fight Cancer, Wherever You Find It
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
The NCAA definitely has a say. You think the leagues aren't talking to them? You're delusional if you think the leagues don't talk to the NCAA. The NCAA pushed the NBA for the one year past HS for college basketball. There are kids who are ready to play in the NBA right out of high school. John Wall, etc. Did the NBA need to do that? No way. They did it because the NCAA wanted the extra coin from guys like Carmelo, etc staying for one year over 0 years.
The NCAA definitely has a say. You think the leagues aren't talking to them? You're delusional if you think the leagues don't talk to the NCAA. The NCAA pushed the NBA for the one year past HS for college basketball. There are kids who are ready to play in the NBA right out of high school. John Wall, etc. Did the NBA need to do that? No way. They did it because the NCAA wanted the extra coin from guys like Carmelo, etc staying for one year over 0 years.
Terrierbyassociation
Fight Cancer, Wherever You Find It
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
As a lawyer who does this area of the law for a living, if Flood couldn't win, its never happening unless it comes through the CBA. Not through the courts.
The legal climate hasn't changed: sports law and Indian law. The courts aren't going to magically start enforcing valid contracts with tribes in any meaningful capacity.
As a lawyer who does this area of the law for a living, if Flood couldn't win, its never happening unless it comes through the CBA. Not through the courts.
The legal climate hasn't changed: sports law and Indian law. The courts aren't going to magically start enforcing valid contracts with tribes in any meaningful capacity.
GopherBigGuy911
The one you hate to love
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
Sort of true, but the NBA also wanted to see if kids right out of h.s. could handle multi-millions of dollars of contrats as well..... There is a big difference in going for H.S. to traveling every other day. The NBA even says they lucked out with Koby and K.G. kids that were wise well beyond their years. Teams wanted a way of filtering out who could handle the everyday presures AND compeate at a MAJORLY higher level than H.S. The NBA decided to use the college system as the prefered filter. Between 95 and 2005 1/2 of the High Schoolers who declaired for the draft were major busts......
Sort of true, but the NBA also wanted to see if kids right out of h.s. could handle multi-millions of dollars of contrats as well..... There is a big difference in going for H.S. to traveling every other day. The NBA even says they lucked out with Koby and K.G. kids that were wise well beyond their years. Teams wanted a way of filtering out who could handle the everyday presures AND compeate at a MAJORLY higher level than H.S. The NBA decided to use the college system as the prefered filter. Between 95 and 2005 1/2 of the High Schoolers who declaired for the draft were major busts......
Nevergoodenough
New member
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
The NBA and MLB also doesn't have a major junior program out of Canada that is moving people into their leagues with no college experience. In fact, the NCAA is not the major feeding program for the NHL like it is for the NBA and NFL.
The NBA and MLB also doesn't have a major junior program out of Canada that is moving people into their leagues with no college experience. In fact, the NCAA is not the major feeding program for the NHL like it is for the NBA and NFL.
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
The fault of a being a true international game...it's a lose / lose for college hockey, unfortunately.
The fault of a being a true international game...it's a lose / lose for college hockey, unfortunately.
Go4PuckFan
Pro-American
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am) but doesn't the NHL have an agreement (rule, understanding, etc.) with the Canadien Juniors that if the team plucks a draft choice out of the Canadien Junior League, it must place him on the active roster and not bury him in the minors?
If so, why can't the NCAA negotiate a similar deal?
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am) but doesn't the NHL have an agreement (rule, understanding, etc.) with the Canadien Juniors that if the team plucks a draft choice out of the Canadien Junior League, it must place him on the active roster and not bury him in the minors?
If so, why can't the NCAA negotiate a similar deal?
collins1080
New member
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
Seriously! Stop blaming everything on the refs. The reality is that UM did not come with the intensity it needed. Yes, Frattin made an illegal hit and was called for it, but UM still didn't score on the PP for the five minutes they had. They lost becasue they failed to execute, not because of the refs.
Did anyone see the ref get cut last night? It was Don Adam's crew. IT did not look good.
Seriously! Stop blaming everything on the refs. The reality is that UM did not come with the intensity it needed. Yes, Frattin made an illegal hit and was called for it, but UM still didn't score on the PP for the five minutes they had. They lost becasue they failed to execute, not because of the refs.
Did anyone see the ref get cut last night? It was Don Adam's crew. IT did not look good.
willythekid
New member
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
but a flesh wound...
but a flesh wound...
HarleyMC
Registered User
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
PS, I think you are forgetting that there is plenty of potential hockey talent out there (and parents I might add) that think getting a college education and playing hockey is still a valuable asset and developmental track in today's world.
It worked just fine before the end of the NHL lockout in 2005 when some two dozen D1 players, more than double the typical number in previous years, decided to sign pro contracts rather than finish college. Initially, it was seen as an aberration owing to two years worth of classes coming into the same season due to the lockout, but then more than 30 players did the same thing the next year.
I think the exodus to MJs is a myth and there is virtually no data substantiating that speculation. Restraint of trade lawsuit? C'mon PS, that's ridiculous. Do you have a case study we could look at to verify your speculations? Players wishing to enter the National Football League must play a minimum of three years in college and that seems to work seamlessly. Even the NBA players union voted to raise the draft age from 18 to 19 without any protest.
If the NHL would get off their high corporate horses and negotiate with the NCAA something CAN be done. The problem is the NCAA is an ***** kissing organization when it comes to college hockey and the NHL is happy as a lark because the CBA enables them to whisper in a 18-20 year old college player's ear at will, especially at the behest of the front office forecasts that indicate a need for a future cash injection, based upon their skewed assessment of whether they like his college career, team, or coach. What a load of corporate crap! Wave the carrot ($), pull the kid out and get him into the minor league system at bargain prices. That's reality and the NHL has done a magnificent job of professionalizing college sports and stealing the former glory of college hockey.
I appreciate what NBA commissioner David Stern said, that encouraging young, inexperienced people to think they are "the next LeBron James" hurts everyone. Most of those young people will fail, he says, "and then they will be left with virtually nothing." Moreover, there is sufficient predictive validity that the vast majority of college players who leave college early will never see NHL ice time.
So who's encouraging them to leave despite the glaring statistics? The corporate NHL power mongers and profiteers who couldn't care less whether the kid gets an education or not, as long as they have the security, like a reality game of fantasy hockey, that he may one day help them sell tickets and merchandise and keep their media contract on the satellite. While at the same time they give lip service to the media to make sure their politically correct in presenting a good public image regarding college athletes so everyone will play along.
Hypocrisy in the NHL is pandemic and all of the following names know it and are attempting to fight it at the grassroots level which is basically the only battleground they have. Lucia, Berenson, Kelley, York, Anastos, McLeod, Bertagna and a host of others recognize and continue to stress the two fold value of a four-year education/college degree and full maturity and development as a college hockey player because they think it matters in life. We can hear them vehemently and vocally every season resisting the temptation to acquiesce with the perpetuating condescending attitude the NHL has demonstrated for the student-athlete track in US college hockey for decades.
PS, I think you are forgetting that there is plenty of potential hockey talent out there (and parents I might add) that think getting a college education and playing hockey is still a valuable asset and developmental track in today's world.
It worked just fine before the end of the NHL lockout in 2005 when some two dozen D1 players, more than double the typical number in previous years, decided to sign pro contracts rather than finish college. Initially, it was seen as an aberration owing to two years worth of classes coming into the same season due to the lockout, but then more than 30 players did the same thing the next year. I think the exodus to MJs is a myth and there is virtually no data substantiating that speculation. Restraint of trade lawsuit? C'mon PS, that's ridiculous. Do you have a case study we could look at to verify your speculations? Players wishing to enter the National Football League must play a minimum of three years in college and that seems to work seamlessly. Even the NBA players union voted to raise the draft age from 18 to 19 without any protest.
If the NHL would get off their high corporate horses and negotiate with the NCAA something CAN be done. The problem is the NCAA is an ***** kissing organization when it comes to college hockey and the NHL is happy as a lark because the CBA enables them to whisper in a 18-20 year old college player's ear at will, especially at the behest of the front office forecasts that indicate a need for a future cash injection, based upon their skewed assessment of whether they like his college career, team, or coach. What a load of corporate crap! Wave the carrot ($), pull the kid out and get him into the minor league system at bargain prices. That's reality and the NHL has done a magnificent job of professionalizing college sports and stealing the former glory of college hockey.
I appreciate what NBA commissioner David Stern said, that encouraging young, inexperienced people to think they are "the next LeBron James" hurts everyone. Most of those young people will fail, he says, "and then they will be left with virtually nothing." Moreover, there is sufficient predictive validity that the vast majority of college players who leave college early will never see NHL ice time.
So who's encouraging them to leave despite the glaring statistics? The corporate NHL power mongers and profiteers who couldn't care less whether the kid gets an education or not, as long as they have the security, like a reality game of fantasy hockey, that he may one day help them sell tickets and merchandise and keep their media contract on the satellite. While at the same time they give lip service to the media to make sure their politically correct in presenting a good public image regarding college athletes so everyone will play along.
Hypocrisy in the NHL is pandemic and all of the following names know it and are attempting to fight it at the grassroots level which is basically the only battleground they have. Lucia, Berenson, Kelley, York, Anastos, McLeod, Bertagna and a host of others recognize and continue to stress the two fold value of a four-year education/college degree and full maturity and development as a college hockey player because they think it matters in life. We can hear them vehemently and vocally every season resisting the temptation to acquiesce with the perpetuating condescending attitude the NHL has demonstrated for the student-athlete track in US college hockey for decades.
Last edited:
VarsityWisconsin
Registered User
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
Cool!
Cool!
Puck Swami
New member
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
Harley:
Always enjoy your well artculated posts.
Most college players do stay four years and get their degrees, and that's wonderful. College Hockey has served those players very well as competitive opportunity to play the sport they love, perhaps ease the financial burden on their familes through scholasrships and financial aid, and to get a degree that will help them in life. I am all for that.
The question is more of the top-end players, who ARE going to Major Juniors in record numbers. See below:
http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,17949/PaulKellysMissionSavetheGame.html
That's exactly why Paul Kelly got hired by the commisioners to form College Hockey, Inc. The exodus to MJ is not a myth. In USCHO on Jan 26, Paul Kelly cited '100 talented kids' playing major junior who could be playing in US college. Presumably, most of those 100 kids he's talking about are Americans who spurned college hockey for major juniors. Major Juniors have done a much better job with education packages, reduced midweek travel and aggressive recruiting of college bound and even existing college players.
Having rules that further tie kids to colleges just means more top end players are going to go to MJ and avoid us.
The NHL? They are a business first and have been since the very beginning. They are self-interested first, and such a stance is to be expected. They have feeder leagues all over the world working hard to produce talent for them to simply pluck.
The big question is about purpose - should college hockey compete as an NHL talent development feeder or should it exist to serve as opportunity and entertainment for the 90% of college players that won't ever see the NHL?
Harley:
Always enjoy your well artculated posts.
Most college players do stay four years and get their degrees, and that's wonderful. College Hockey has served those players very well as competitive opportunity to play the sport they love, perhaps ease the financial burden on their familes through scholasrships and financial aid, and to get a degree that will help them in life. I am all for that.
The question is more of the top-end players, who ARE going to Major Juniors in record numbers. See below:
http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,17949/PaulKellysMissionSavetheGame.html
That's exactly why Paul Kelly got hired by the commisioners to form College Hockey, Inc. The exodus to MJ is not a myth. In USCHO on Jan 26, Paul Kelly cited '100 talented kids' playing major junior who could be playing in US college. Presumably, most of those 100 kids he's talking about are Americans who spurned college hockey for major juniors. Major Juniors have done a much better job with education packages, reduced midweek travel and aggressive recruiting of college bound and even existing college players.
Having rules that further tie kids to colleges just means more top end players are going to go to MJ and avoid us.
The NHL? They are a business first and have been since the very beginning. They are self-interested first, and such a stance is to be expected. They have feeder leagues all over the world working hard to produce talent for them to simply pluck.
The big question is about purpose - should college hockey compete as an NHL talent development feeder or should it exist to serve as opportunity and entertainment for the 90% of college players that won't ever see the NHL?
HarleyMC
Registered User
Re: MN Golden Gopher 2010 Offseason Thread
This is a good discussion but I'm so busy on a research project right now I'll have to get back to you on some of this later PS.
Nevertheless I'm aware of CHI and it impresses me as a combined NCAA PR and watchdog organization that I propose will have some efficacy exposing the deceptive strategies that are producing much of the flight to MJs as well as further garnishing some PR allegiance for the US college game. However, in my view until the NCAA makes a clear move to define the college option as an athletic/education track and not a stepping stone to the pros by limiting the early departures I doubt this arms race will curtail. Let's face it the NCAA will never win the arms race against MJs. NCAA hockey needs to be clearly seen as a legitimate educational option first, then athletic. That's where we differ and it makes no sense to try and compete with a Canadian system that is distinctly athletic. The NCAA has not gone far enough in limiting early departures because it is still playing politics with the system.
In my view, the NCAA needs to define their track and not acquiesce to the prevailing cultural trend of continuing to allow the professionalizing of college hockey. It is my strong belief that the value of a college education is the major selling point for the NCAA (which is CHIs platform as well) and that must be followed by a clear commitment and stance against what is currently minimizing it's effective outcomes. There may be a spike in the flight trajectory at the outset, but that could very well level out eventually without any substantive drop in the quality of NCAA college hockey. I think eventually we would see the top end players that want to stay for 3-4 years play for the college of their choice. What I meant by "myth" is it is still highly speculative whether age limitations on NCAA flight would result in a longitudinal increase in exodus to MJs. We simply don't know empirically nor is there a modality that emulates it until sufficient data has been processed.
As I understand the current exodus trend, it is marked by 1) grandiose scholarship strategies that are base line deceptive and 2) financial buyouts. What I believe will represent the greatest contribution from CHIs campaign is exposing the negative aspects of the OHL educational incentive program that may appear, to some individuals, superior compared to what the American universities and colleges offer students.
My understanding is enrollment in online education, which to be fair can be equally or more difficult than land based courses, is low among OHL players which supports the view that hockey, not education is the main focus of OHL players despite their a priori suggestions. My personal view is being an NCAA full time student/athlete is much more challenging and beneficial to an individual's overall cognitive, psychological and physical life span development than simply playing hockey and that must be clearly communicated ad infinitum.
The US rate of post secondary enrollment after HS currently fluctuates between 62-69%. My understanding is that some calculations indicated a much lower enrollment (18%) after OHL players leave the league. That seems to indicate that the vast majority of players do not take advantage of the OHL educational packages. This suggests a significant trend representing negative educational enrollment outcomes related to the OHL educational incentive program. Once these facts are further clarified and widespread, the NCAA can leverage their emphasis on a solid educational platform for the student-athlete, look at age limitations for pro signings (I won't hold my breath here ) and thus deemphasize the "stepping stone" mentality that seems so prevalent today. That is a viable option for the present time if they ever found the political fortitude to do it.
My .02 of holy rambling with tons of work yet to do here...gotta go.
The rest we'll have to leave for another time, my friend! Thanks for the feedback PS.
This is a good discussion but I'm so busy on a research project right now I'll have to get back to you on some of this later PS.
Nevertheless I'm aware of CHI and it impresses me as a combined NCAA PR and watchdog organization that I propose will have some efficacy exposing the deceptive strategies that are producing much of the flight to MJs as well as further garnishing some PR allegiance for the US college game. However, in my view until the NCAA makes a clear move to define the college option as an athletic/education track and not a stepping stone to the pros by limiting the early departures I doubt this arms race will curtail. Let's face it the NCAA will never win the arms race against MJs. NCAA hockey needs to be clearly seen as a legitimate educational option first, then athletic. That's where we differ and it makes no sense to try and compete with a Canadian system that is distinctly athletic. The NCAA has not gone far enough in limiting early departures because it is still playing politics with the system.
In my view, the NCAA needs to define their track and not acquiesce to the prevailing cultural trend of continuing to allow the professionalizing of college hockey. It is my strong belief that the value of a college education is the major selling point for the NCAA (which is CHIs platform as well) and that must be followed by a clear commitment and stance against what is currently minimizing it's effective outcomes. There may be a spike in the flight trajectory at the outset, but that could very well level out eventually without any substantive drop in the quality of NCAA college hockey. I think eventually we would see the top end players that want to stay for 3-4 years play for the college of their choice. What I meant by "myth" is it is still highly speculative whether age limitations on NCAA flight would result in a longitudinal increase in exodus to MJs. We simply don't know empirically nor is there a modality that emulates it until sufficient data has been processed.
As I understand the current exodus trend, it is marked by 1) grandiose scholarship strategies that are base line deceptive and 2) financial buyouts. What I believe will represent the greatest contribution from CHIs campaign is exposing the negative aspects of the OHL educational incentive program that may appear, to some individuals, superior compared to what the American universities and colleges offer students.
My understanding is enrollment in online education, which to be fair can be equally or more difficult than land based courses, is low among OHL players which supports the view that hockey, not education is the main focus of OHL players despite their a priori suggestions. My personal view is being an NCAA full time student/athlete is much more challenging and beneficial to an individual's overall cognitive, psychological and physical life span development than simply playing hockey and that must be clearly communicated ad infinitum.
The US rate of post secondary enrollment after HS currently fluctuates between 62-69%. My understanding is that some calculations indicated a much lower enrollment (18%) after OHL players leave the league. That seems to indicate that the vast majority of players do not take advantage of the OHL educational packages. This suggests a significant trend representing negative educational enrollment outcomes related to the OHL educational incentive program. Once these facts are further clarified and widespread, the NCAA can leverage their emphasis on a solid educational platform for the student-athlete, look at age limitations for pro signings (I won't hold my breath here
) and thus deemphasize the "stepping stone" mentality that seems so prevalent today. That is a viable option for the present time if they ever found the political fortitude to do it.My .02 of holy rambling with tons of work yet to do here...gotta go.
The rest we'll have to leave for another time, my friend! Thanks for the feedback PS.
Last edited:
- Status