What's new
By:
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.

Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

The only reason a 15 or 16 year old signs a letter of committment is because the college team wants to lock him up, and ensure he heads to Provincial A or the USHL. So, is it correct and proper for a college team to sign a kid, and then sit on his rights for three-four years while he plays out his junior seasons at the Provincial or USHL level? All of this being done under the unofficial direction and advice of the college team?

So a young start player must decide at 15-16 the direction of not just four years of college -- but often times two-three-or-four years of juniors at a lower level? What if the kid is interested in the college team at 16, but changes his mind at 18? Or he gets more information and doesn't want to attend college? What if there are new coaches? The committment to college is such a typical NCAA device: The prospective "student" athlete is totally at the whims of the college coaching staff and the college administration -- and if he fails to perform, the school is deemed perfectly within its rights to yank a scholarship. But the prosepctive student doesn't have the same right to leave? Or, worse, he has the right to leave -- but will have his character demeaned, his family insulted, and his academic abilities questioned by fans and supporters of the college?

Nope, I don't buy it.

Wouldn't it be better if the 15-16 year olds didn't have to choose college versus major junior sometime around their sophmore year of high school? And, in my estimation, the only entity forcing this early, unseemly life-path selection is the NCAA. For the NCAA to stand back and cry foul when a few kids opt to exercise their freedom of choice and play elswhere is hypocritical at best -- unfathomably self deluded at worst.
 
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Lakerblue said:
The only reason a 15 or 16 year old signs a letter of committment is because the college team wants to lock him up, and ensure he heads to Provincial A or the USHL. So, is it correct and proper for a college team to sign a kid, and then sit on his rights for three-four years while he plays out his junior seasons at the Provincial or USHL level? All of this being done under the unofficial direction and advice of the college team?

So a young start player must decide at 15-16 the direction of not just four years of college -- but often times two-three-or-four years of juniors at a lower level? What if the kid is interested in the college team at 16, but changes his mind at 18? Or he gets more information and doesn't want to attend college? What if there are new coaches? The committment to college is such a typical NCAA device: The prospective "student" athlete is totally at the whims of the college coaching staff and the college administration -- and if he fails to perform, the school is deemed perfectly within its rights to yank a scholarship. But the prosepctive student doesn't have the same right to leave? Or, worse, he has the right to leave -- but will have his character demeaned, his family insulted, and his academic abilities questioned by fans and supporters of the college?

Nope, I don't buy it.

Wouldn't it be better if the 15-16 year olds didn't have to choose college versus major junior sometime around their sophmore year of high school? And, in my estimation, the only entity forcing this early, unseemly life-path selection is the NCAA. For the NCAA to stand back and cry foul when a few kids opt to exercise their freedom of choice and play elswhere is hypocritical at best -- unfathomably self deluded at worst.
Click to expand...


they don't have to make a choice, they just can't play with the pros.
 
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

But they can be coached by professionals, treated by professional trainers, provided gear, given a place to live, food, and a living allowance? They can play with anyone who is drafted by an NHL team. That drafted player is allowed to negotiate with an NHL team. All of this is allowed, and normal, in the USHL.

BUT that just can't play in a league in which the rare player returns to the Juniors after their 10-day minimum NHL exposure tour is complete?

And this rule comes from the NCAA -- the organization that gave you Cam Newton, the Ohio State Buckeyes, and the recent Ice Hockey Rules Committee?

I get what you are saying about keeping amatuers isolated from any taint of competition with professionals. I get it. I see it. I don't think you are entirely wrong. But it seems to me that the NCAA has long picked a fight with an organization that has no interest in the fight (the CHL). Now the CHL is fighting back with smooth advertising, promotion, and recruiting, and the NCAA finds this offensive? The NCAA recruits players, hard, every ady of every year, in rinks from Whitecourt Alberta to Columbus, Ohio. I guess I don't see playing in a league in which the rare random kid returns from NHL action. I can see where some people would have a problem with that.
 
Last edited:
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Drafted does not mean signed.
Drafted does not mean they have NHL experience.
Drafted does not mean pro, the other two do.
It's not that hard to understand.
 
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Major Junior is NOT professional hockey. The NCAA is the only organization/government in North America that believes that. But the NCAA is cool with pay-to-play football players. That is hypocrisy my friends.

I will agree that some Major Junior draftees are using NCAA teams as stalking horses. And the more probable reason, because no one has any proof about under-the-table money, is that some of these kids frankly don't want to play in the towns and cities or for the team that drafted them. If you are from a small town in the Maritimes, and you've been drafted by a QMJHL team in, say, Chicoutimi, where over 90% of the locals speak French-only and you're a long ways "from everywhere" -- well guess what, you might publicly state that you're going the NCAA route so Chicoutimi won't draft you, and if they do, keep repeating that message until they trade your rights to a more acceptable-to-you team like Halifax. Then you de-commit because you got your way. It is practically the only leverage these players have to try to dictate where they are going to play their Major Junior. It is not pretty, and probably not fair to the NCAA team that has been "used", but it happens all the time.
 
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Lakerblue said:
The only reason a 15 or 16 year old signs a letter of committment is because the college team wants to lock him up, and ensure he heads to Provincial A or the USHL. So, is it correct and proper for a college team to sign a kid, and then sit on his rights for three-four years while he plays out his junior seasons at the Provincial or USHL level? All of this being done under the unofficial direction and advice of the college team?

So a young start player must decide at 15-16 the direction of not just four years of college -- but often times two-three-or-four years of juniors at a lower level? What if the kid is interested in the college team at 16, but changes his mind at 18? Or he gets more information and doesn't want to attend college? What if there are new coaches? The committment to college is such a typical NCAA device: The prospective "student" athlete is totally at the whims of the college coaching staff and the college administration -- and if he fails to perform, the school is deemed perfectly within its rights to yank a scholarship. But the prosepctive student doesn't have the same right to leave? Or, worse, he has the right to leave -- but will have his character demeaned, his family insulted, and his academic abilities questioned by fans and supporters of the college?

Nope, I don't buy it.

Wouldn't it be better if the 15-16 year olds didn't have to choose college versus major junior sometime around their sophmore year of high school? And, in my estimation, the only entity forcing this early, unseemly life-path selection is the NCAA. For the NCAA to stand back and cry foul when a few kids opt to exercise their freedom of choice and play elswhere is hypocritical at best -- unfathomably self deluded at worst.
Click to expand...

Remember to keep in mind, players that are not seniors in high school, that is, juniors or younger are not allowed to sign Letters of Intent. They can only be signed during their senior year. Verbal committments, which can be given by the younger players, are non-binding on both the athlete's and coach's part. Either can walk away from their agreement before signing an LOI. Letters of Intent are only signed by players that are receiving athletic scholarships. Letters of Intent are binding and require the student-athlete to attend the institution for 1 year and receive a scholarship. Obviously, there are circumstances in which a prospective-athlete can be released from their LOI but this is less than 2% of all athletes that sign them. The changing of a coach is not a valid reason for a prospective player fron getting a release. Once a player signs an LOI, the recruiting process is stopped. Players are not required to sign LOIs in order to be eligible to play and receive a scholarship but it stops the recruiting process which can continue if they don't sign an LOI. Players not receiving athletic financial aid are not permitted to sign LOIs., i.e., walk-ons.
 
Last edited:
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

du78 said:
Remember to keep in mind, players that are not seniors in high school, that is, juniors or younger are not allowed to sign Letters of Intent. They can only be signed during their senior year.
Click to expand...

Wow page 3 before someone finally steps up... thanks du78
 
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

I don't understand why competition against professionals is even an issue in defining amateur status. If an NCAA golfer qualifies for the US Open and plays, he doesn't magically become a professional just because he played against professionals. He becomes a professional when he elects to play for the prize money.
 
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

AVFC said:
I don't understand why competition against professionals is even an issue in defining amateur status. If an NCAA golfer qualifies for the US Open and plays, he doesn't magically become a professional just because he played against professionals. He becomes a professional when he elects to play for the prize money.
Click to expand...

Tennis players are also allowed to compete with and play with pros, as long as they receive no compensation themselves....hockey was granted an excemption when the NCAA revamped its amature rules a few years back, the old powers that be in college hockey wanted to keep the status quo....not that its really working out for them....just ask Red at Michigan, who along with a couple of certain coaches out east are adamant at keeping the silly current rules in place....reap what you sow I suppose.

But they can be coached by professionals, treated by professional trainers, provided gear, given a place to live, food, and a living allowance? They can play with anyone who is drafted by an NHL team. That drafted player is allowed to negotiate with an NHL team. All of this is allowed, and normal, in the USHL.

BUT that just can't play in a league in which the rare player returns to the Juniors after their 10-day minimum NHL exposure tour is complete?

And this rule comes from the NCAA -- the organization that gave you Cam Newton, the Ohio State Buckeyes, and the recent Ice Hockey Rules Committee?
Click to expand...


Well stated Lakerblue....I'm not sure many people on this site really understand how bad the NCAA looks in all of this.
 
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

It does USA hockey absolutely no good to have an unlimited supply of foreign players who are just not good enough to play in the AHL, but have used up all their MJ eligibility, and are older than USA high school seniors taking up spots in college hockey. I realize teams like Denver would be much happier to have all their players like this, but why should USA tax dollars be used to educate these overage Canadians? If the Canadians want to come to the USA for a free education, that's fine, just follow the NCAA rules.
 
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Happy said:
It does USA hockey absolutely no good to have an unlimited supply of foreign players who are just not good enough to play in the AHL, but have used up all their MJ eligibility, and are older than USA high school seniors taking up spots in college hockey. I realize teams like Denver would be much happier to have all their players like this, but why should USA tax dollars be used to educate these overage Canadians? If the Canadians want to come to the USA for a free education, that's fine, just follow the NCAA rules.
Click to expand...

Not sure I get where you are coming from here Happy....back in 1980, USA Hockey was not strong enough and did not have the depth of talent to stock its NCAA teams, hence the importation of Canadian players. Much has changed since then and by stating that the current rules need to be kept in place is admiting that there are not enough good American players and domestic leagues such as the USHL are clearly inferior to the CHL. As such, more elite American born players would naturally opt for the "superior" CHL route.

Much has changed since 1980 of course. There are more than enough quality American born players that would not be squeezed out by your dasterdly "boogy man"...the "over-age" Canadian....of course this says nothing of the fact the vast majority of incoming college hockey players are over the age of 18 anyway!

No Happy, its time the NCAA leaves the 1960's and enters into the 21st Century.
 
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

jnacc said:
Not sure I get where you are coming from here Happy....back in 1980, USA Hockey was not strong enough and did not have the depth of talent to stock its NCAA teams, hence the importation of Canadian players. Much has changed since then and by stating that the current rules need to be kept in place is admiting that there are not enough good American players and domestic leagues such as the USHL are clearly inferior to the CHL.
Click to expand...

While I agree somewhat with your premise that not changing the rules is somewhat a result of a fear that more players would choose the Major Junior route instead of the USHL and then move on to NCAA Hockey if a pro offer didn't materialize, I think you are vastly underestimating the power of perception and predjudice on the process.

Back in 1980 it wasn't just that USA Hockey wasn't deep enough, there was a long-standing perception that no American born player COULD be good enough to play in the NHL. It took a long time to break down that barrier and whether you are honest enough to admit it or not a number of those perceptions and predjudices still exist today. They are no longer mainstream points of view, but there are still people in some NHL front offices that don't trust the USHL or NCAA partly because they are American institutions IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

jnacc said:
Not sure I get where you are coming from here Happy....back in 1980, USA Hockey was not strong enough and did not have the depth of talent to stock its NCAA teams, hence the importation of Canadian players. Much has changed since then and by stating that the current rules need to be kept in place is admiting that there are not enough good American players and domestic leagues such as the USHL are clearly inferior to the CHL. As such, more elite American born players would naturally opt for the "superior" CHL route.

Much has changed since 1980 of course. There are more than enough quality American born players that would not be squeezed out by your dasterdly "boogy man"...the "over-age" Canadian....of course this says nothing of the fact the vast majority of incoming college hockey players are over the age of 18 anyway!

No Happy, its time the NCAA leaves the 1960's and enters into the 21st Century.
Click to expand...


Wrong. There were more than enough USA players to stock every NCAA team. Were they better than 21 year Old Canadians who had just played out their eligibility in MJ? Probably not, but somehow the Americans still managed to win 2 Gold medals at the Olympics.

There is a difference in how Americans and Canadians run young kids teams. the MJ were set up by the NHL teams to develop their own talent, with no care at all what happened to the majority of kids who never made it, and to make cash.
These kids, since they were older, and had already been playing semi-pro for 4 or 5 years were typically better than American high school players, but so what, let the Canadians give them an education. If you like watching these players, then pick out a MJ team, and support them. No reason to make a college team be just like MJ, enjoy it for what it is.
 
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

solovsfett said:
http://www.ushl.com/centralscouting/ChooseNCAA.cfm

http://www.aolnews.com/2009/04/09/ncaa-hockey-producing-higher-number-of-nhl-players/

if the number of euro players is close to 25-30% then we're talking about 2-1 MJ to NCAA at best
Click to expand...

Remember that quite a few Euro players played in the CHL as well....regardless lets call it a 2.5 -1 advantage for the CHL over the NCAA...quite a difference from the equal number reported by Eaves.
 
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

jnacc said:
Remember that quite a few Euro players played in the CHL as well....regardless lets call it a 2.5 -1 advantage for the CHL over the NCAA...quite a difference from the equal number reported by Eaves.
Click to expand...

wait wait wait. I'm not going to just call it what you want. You're just making your stats up as you go., I'm digging for facts. I know you're biased toward CHL but at least show some semblance of intellectual honesty and look for actual compiled stats to back up your assertions

how bout this? we call it 3-1 NCAA and call it a day? that would be no different than what you're purporting based on 0 stats
 
Last edited:
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Ah, I see now. The odd little myopic anti-Canadian xenophobic Minnesota attitude. Its not about how Americans run their kids hockey programs, its always been about how MINNESOTANS run their kids hockey programs. In Michigan, the Canadian system is fully adopted and integrated. Kids grow up playing club level hockey, not municipal youth hockey. In Michigan, kids are working towards playing junior hockey, and usually the top end talent will avoid Michigan's high school hockey. There is no animosity towards Canada in Michigan hockey, it has always been a friendly working relationship. The worry about "foreign players" in college hockey has almost exclusively come from Minnesota. There are no discussions in the media in Detroit, or Ann Arbor, or East Lansing, or Sault Ste. Marie, about "importing foreign players to play college hockey in our American tax-payer supported schools." That is a uniquely Minnesotan boogy man. Mr. Marriucci went after the CHL many years ago in a bid to protect -- not American players -- but Minnesota players, and specifically the Minnesota High School Hockey system. The NCAA swallowed that inane line about protecting "American" hockey. So now hockey players are held to a different standard than tennis and golf players at the NCAA level.

In Michigan, the CHL -- via the OHL -- is well known and respected in the region. Saginaw and Plymouth are two OHL teams inside the Michigan boarders. And Michigan also has Sarnia and the Soo Greyhounds right on the boarder. When I was growing up, I got to watch a few young kids named Wayne Gertzky and then Ron Francis, play for the Greyhounds. A few years later Joe Thornton learned his trade in Sault Ste. Marie. But the Soo also got to watch Jim Dowd and Doug Weight at LSSU. I remember going over the river with some friends to see a skinny young Chris Pronger come into town for his only visit with Peterborough. I've seen both sides of the Soo celebrate winning NCAA titles and Memorial Cups. In Michigan, the CHL is known and respected every much as the NCAA, and the little temper-stamping-feet of some NCAA people seems silly and confusing.

The OHL attracts top end talent. The NCAA attracts top end talent. Neither organization is going to attract ALL of the top end talent. So what is this all about? Amatuer status? (As noted, being lectured on Amatuer status issues from the NCAA is a little hard to swallow).

Or is this antiquated division a left over from an era when native Minnesotans felt their decades-long grip on college hockey slipping? When those 21-year old Canadians from Michigan Tech would come down from the UP under Big John McInnis? And then, horror of horrors, Big Bad Gino Gasperini brought in his Canadian circus down from North Dakota. And they caused much pain and anguish in Minnesota. Isn't that what this is really about? The only people who seem to have had any stake in keeping the CHL players out of the NCAA are Minnesotans. And thankfully, this absurd ban won't last forever, and it won't last much longer.
 
Last edited:
Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Well put Lakerblue. I agree there are some very vocal posters over the years on this board that are conflating Minnesota concerns (bigotry?) about non-high schoolers in general and Canadians in particular as some sort of ruin to NCAA hockey. There is Minnesota hockey player development, the rest-of-US player development and Canadian player development models, with the rest-of-US and Canadian models being very similar. So why has debate on this topic always seemed to be hijacked by supporters of the Minnesota high-school model? It works for them. Great. Others use a different model. Doesn't make the Minnesota model, the minority choice, the optimum choice. Also doesn't make the more popular choice, club hockey, evil or Un-American.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top