PDA

View Full Version : More reason to debunk the Canadian Junior myth.



Pages : 1 [2]

Shirtless Guy
08-10-2012, 01:15 PM
I prefer the HS standard rather than a specific age for a few reasons, like; 1)The player will know if they can even GET into the college of their choice, 2)Different states/provinces graduate kids at different ages plus some will choose to accelerate, 3)The issue of finishing HS near the home rink becomes irrelevant.

In other news, it looks like Windsor got caught with their hand in the cookie jar (http://www.ontariohockeyleague.com/article/ohl-announces-fines-sanctions/125102). Though I don't expect improper compensation to STOP entirely, I do expect that this could help curtail it somewhat in the near term. That could be helpful for college hockey. Ultimately though, I think they'll finally decide to own up to the fact that they are a professional league and change the rules to actually ALLOW the players to be compensated at their actual worth. When that happens, the players win, the CHL loses slightly, and college hockey is slightly worse off than it is now.Im completely ok with that. If the CHL actually paid players what they were worth and competed for them by paying more, it would be great for things overall, instead of trying to make an apples to apples comparison, we'd know the CHL was a semi-pro/pro league.

Hammy
08-10-2012, 02:49 PM
Yeah that's a good point as well. Some in hockey are all for letting kids play in the CHL before they hit their 18th birthday and then let them play in the NCAA if they want to.

IMO, those that advocate it are victims of poor strategic thinking.

First, you open up Pandora's Box if you open up that option. I strongly bet it ultimately reduces the talent level coming into college in the long run. Once they go up there, I doubt you see many of the best ones coming back to the U.S. for college hockey. You'll probably see a number of CHL rejects come down but is that what we really want for NCAA hockey? To essentially become a landing pad for kids who couldn't cut it in the CHL? Not exactly smart marketing of your product to send that message. No thanks.

Second, we have to consider the price being paid by U.S. junior leagues if that happened. In particular, the USHL. It would completely wreck their selling point as a league when its key differentiation to a kid in his teens is the kid can play high level hockey but still keep his college eligibility intact. If they lose that selling point, their league clearly loses luster for kids.

I also find it somewhat ridiculous to say what kid at 16 doesn't think he'll be in the NHL at 19. Quite frankly, a lot more don't think that way... far more than some here apparently realize. Most of these kids (and their parents) are far more in touch with reality than they are being given credit for... no doubt you'll have the occasional delusional prospect but those are more the exception than the rule in my experience over the years.

The Exiled One
08-10-2012, 03:25 PM
I also find it somewhat ridiculous to say what kid at 16 doesn't think he'll be in the NHL at 19. Quite frankly, a lot more don't think that way... far more than some here apparently realize. Most of these kids (and their parents) are far more in touch with reality than they are being given credit for... no doubt you'll have the occasional delusional prospect but those are more the exception than the rule in my experience over the years.
That was my original quote, but I should specify that it was made tongue-in-cheek. I realize that many kids are realistic, often evidenced by the fact that they committed to college. The point I was trying to illustrate is that a few kids (more than college fans prefer) think they are gaining more than they are losing by going pro at age 15 or 16 versus maintaining their amateur status. Obviously, the stats support the fact that a large portion of them are incorrect. The ultimate point being: none of those players thought that their decision would later be proven incorrect.

Also, unlike Goon, I don't advocate any rule changes making CHL players eligible prior to any benchmark. I just advocate that, if they do decide to go pro, they are better off waiting until they graduate HS to make that decision. I think they would have most of what they need to make a well informed decision at that point.

Dirty
08-10-2012, 04:49 PM
Windsor Spitfires fined $400k for I assume paying players under the table: http://www.ontariohockeyleague.com/article/ohl-announces-fines-sanctions/125102

bronconick
08-10-2012, 05:53 PM
Well, now we know why they never bothered to sue Jeff Jackson after running their mouths for months.

Goon
08-13-2012, 05:57 PM
Well, now we know why they never bothered to sue Jeff Jackson after running their mouths for months.
Yeah no doubt...

C-H-C
08-17-2012, 05:33 PM
Canadian Major Junior players reportedly forming a labor union:
http://www.thejuniorhockeynews.com/Canadian%20Major%20Junior%20Players%20Forming%20La bor%20Union.html

The Exiled One
08-20-2012, 01:36 PM
Canadian Major Junior players reportedly forming a labor union:
http://www.thejuniorhockeynews.com/Canadian%20Major%20Junior%20Players%20Forming%20La bor%20Union.html
More on that...

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2012/08/19/chl-players-forming-union-spokeswoman

It could be a stretch to get 60%.

If they did decide to unionize, I think it'd be good for college hockey in the very short term (as in, top players trying to avoid the mess), but ultimately it could result in the CHL becoming a MORE appealing league to play in, especially if all education packages became guaranteed and compensation increases.

Still though, you'd know where you stand with players as the need to commit to a college for bargaining leverage would be significantly decreased. I like it for that reason alone. I love college hockey and having some top players in it, but I more strongly hate the duplicity and scheming that exists now.