Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

I believe that the hope of some of us herein is to, indeed, get out of the 1970's -- and the obviously poor decision by the NCAA to follow its then-Minnesota-dominated hockey leadership in cutting off CHL players from NCAA play. Yes, let us ALL move out of the 1970's and admit that the restriction against CHL players needs to end. It was a silly rule, enacted at a silly time, by people who were not thinking in the best interests of college hockey but, instead, were thinking of their own backyard's interests.

Now that we have seen the illogic of that decision -- as MInnesota, Michigan, and new England are all capable of producing fine hockey players regardless of the system -- let us move away from such arcane foolishness.

Or is it, perhaps, that some people are still just a little-too-closed-minded and, perhaps, that little lingering anti-Canadian, or worse Canadian-ignornace, to end a longstanding practice which has long since lost any value, any purpose, and any validity? Just asking. I mean, I don't think we need any long winded sermons on the value of Minnesota hockey, do we? Can we all agree that Minnesota hockey is fine and dandy? Is Minnesota hockey, and Minnesotans, so threatened and worried for their hockey program's survival that the CHL must be kept out, at bay, for all etnernity? I don't think thats the case, is it? Minnesota hockey isn't hanging by a thread, is it? Then why the over-reaction from so many Minnesotans, both here, and on other threads over the years when the topic of Canadians and Major Juniors arises?

You can't have it both ways, friends. If USA hockey (not just Minnesota hockey) was deeply threatened with total failure because of the CHL system, perhaps there would be a place for a protectionist law to save college hockey. But there isn't any such danger. There is no such threat. And so there should be no such law.

You would probably win more people over, and affect any changes you want much sonner, if you stopped pinning the blame on Minnesota Hockey. Regardless of what you would like everyone to believe, not wanting CHL players to play in the NCAA and the health of Minnesota Hockey are not mutually exclusive.

And do you honestly believe, because you're in favor of letting CHL players play in the NCAA, that your viewpoint is shared by everyone in Michigan? My God, for someone who likes to lecture others on holdnig predjudices, you harbor quite a few of your own.

You want change? Dropping the attitude would be a great start.

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

I believe that the hope of some of us herein is to, indeed, get out of the 1970's -- and the obviously poor decision by the NCAA to follow its then-Minnesota-dominated hockey leadership in cutting off CHL players from NCAA play. Yes, let us ALL move out of the 1970's and admit that the restriction against CHL players needs to end. It was a silly rule, enacted at a silly time, by people who were not thinking in the best interests of college hockey but, instead, were thinking of their own backyard's interests.

Now that we have seen the illogic of that decision -- as MInnesota, Michigan, and new England are all capable of producing fine hockey players regardless of the system -- let us move away from such arcane foolishness.

Or is it, perhaps, that some people are still just a little-too-closed-minded and, perhaps, that little lingering anti-Canadian, or worse Canadian-ignornace, to end a longstanding practice which has long since lost any value, any purpose, and any validity? Just asking. I mean, I don't think we need any long winded sermons on the value of Minnesota hockey, do we? Can we all agree that Minnesota hockey is fine and dandy? Is Minnesota hockey, and Minnesotans, so threatened and worried for their hockey program's survival that the CHL must be kept out, at bay, for all etnernity? I don't think thats the case, is it? Minnesota hockey isn't hanging by a thread, is it? Then why the over-reaction from so many Minnesotans, both here, and on other threads over the years when the topic of Canadians and Major Juniors arises?

You can't have it both ways, friends. If USA hockey (not just Minnesota hockey) was deeply threatened with total failure because of the CHL system, perhaps there would be a place for a protectionist law to save college hockey. But there isn't any such danger. There is no such threat. And so there should be no such law.

And for the record, no, we don't need any "long-winded sermons" on how stable Minnesota Hockey is. My previous statement says it all. Despite half the population, we have more registered players than Michigan does. To turn your question back on you, is Michigan hockey "fine and dandy"?

[Slap Shot]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

I don't like Minnesota, blah, blah, blah, blah.

If you dropped the chip off your shoulder your point might have a chance to shine through. Argue the merits of your proposal instead of waging a war of words against an apparently sworn enemy.

[AVFC]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

I am not sure you could be more patently false and idiotic...you could probably try but you would fail. (much like this post)

No one has said anything like that here and your use of this topic to go on some myopic rant about Minnesota hockey shows it is YOU that is xenophobic. No one here said ANYTHING like what you were talking about, the only thing was Happy is a Minnesota fan and you are going off like you went to Madison or something because somebody said something at another time that was prideful of Minnesota's system. Keep up the good fight dude

Despite what you seem to think USA Hockey /= Minnesota hockey. Michigan and New England have different systems and guess what, they are aok by pretty much everyone. We may not embrace it here but so what. Prep hockey and midget hockey are good where they are used, HS hockey works here. Get out of the 1970s already.

And I hope the NCAA never allows the MJ players in. The kid knows the choice he is making, deal with it.

But why? Simply because it is the current rule or some a priori truth? If people can't articulate a justification for this position, others are going to presume it is because the supporters of the current rule perceive it as a threat to their programs.

[AVFC]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

And for the record, no, we don't need any "long-winded sermons" on how stable Minnesota Hockey is. My previous statement says it all. Despite half the population, we have more registered players than Michigan does. To turn your question back on you, is Michigan hockey "fine and dandy"?

Wow, 74 more members. That sure is significant.
http://unitedstatesofhockey.com/2011...rs-in-2010-11/

[Lakerblue]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

If you dropped the chip off your shoulder your point might have a chance to shine through. Argue the merits of your proposal instead of waging a war of words against an apparently sworn enemy.

I promise you I don't have any chip on my shoulder about Minnesota. I don't, as a rule, think about Minnesota at all, let alone minnesota hockey.

And, just so we're all clear: Michigan hockey is doing great.. So is New England hockey. Upstate NY hockey is doing well. I assume Alaska hockey is doing fine.

All of that said: why the need for a protectionist rule? This rule harms NCAA hockey teams, and otherwise does nothing. Its a protectionist rule only the rubes in the NCAA could dream up. You Minnesotans need to lighten up a bit -- this isn't specifically about Minnesota, except that the rule was promulgated by Minnesotans. (And no, I don't have a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the NCAA 40 years ago enacting this rule. I guess I thought it was common knowledge).

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

I promise you I don't have any chip on my shoulder about Minnesota. I don't, as a rule, think about Minnesota at all, let alone minnesota hockey.

And, just so we're all clear: Michigan hockey is doing great.. So is New England hockey. Upstate NY hockey is doing well. I assume Alaska hockey is doing fine.

All of that said: why the need for a protectionist rule? This rule harms NCAA hockey teams, and otherwise does nothing. Its a protectionist rule only the rubes in the NCAA could dream up. You Minnesotans need to lighten up a bit -- this isn't specifically about Minnesota, except that the rule was promulgated by Minnesotans. (And no, I don't have a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the NCAA 40 years ago enacting this rule. I guess I thought it was common knowledge).

Minnesota Hockey is concerned about Minnesota Hockey. Most of us Minnesotans like the fact that we give our kids as many opportunites to play as possible, and we take pride in watching our own play. That doesn't mean we all want to dictate whom you have play for you.

It is true that the likes of John Mariucci and Herb Brooks were in favor of this rule, and many attribute where Minnesota Hockey is today to what they did to create opportunities for kids to play IN MINNESOTA. They also worked hard to get UMD and SCSU to the D1 level, and were major factors in Minnesota's "only recruit from within state" policy. Mariucci also refused to play Denver for a number of years because of the age of their roster (despite common misconceptions, it had nothing to do with the nationality of their roster).

However, to say that guys like Mariucci, Brooks, and others involved with Minnesota Hockey are the SOLE reason we have this rule is ridiculous. If you think AHAUS and now USA Hockey do everything just because Minnesota Hockey wants it that way, you've lost your mind. Case in point, the recent change to the Pewee Checking Rule.

[goldy_331]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Wow, 74 more members. That sure is significant.
http://unitedstatesofhockey.com/2011...rs-in-2010-11/

It is when coming from about half the base population to draw from.

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

It is when coming from about half the base population to draw from.

I guess he doesn't understand percentages.

[Lakerblue]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Oooooh, percentages. See, I didn't get that part. Oh, I see now. Oh, yeah, well. That is . . . something there. Yup. That is, really, um, something. How does that saying go? "That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee."

Anyhoo . . . so we all agree, then? The ban on CHL players should be dropped? Good.

And its about time.

Now that its settled, perhaps US College Hockey Inc. can get back to selling the game to fans with money and TV sets. Improving the overall interest of the sport would improve the financial stregnth of the college game, and that would be a great benefit to everyone.

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Oooooh, percentages. See, I didn't get that part. Oh, I see now. Oh, yeah, well. That is . . . something there. Yup. That is, really, um, something. How does that saying go? "That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee."

Anyhoo . . . so we all agree, then? The ban on CHL players should be dropped? Good.

And its about time.

Now that its settled, perhaps US College Hockey Inc. can get back to selling the game to fans with money and TV sets. Improving the overall interest of the sport would improve the financial stregnth of the college game, and that would be a great benefit to everyone.

Got nothing, ha?

Come on, YOU'RE the one who made this an indictment on Minnesota Hockey. Now all you have is a lame attempt at sarcasm? I guess the fact that Michigan Youth Hockey will always be in Minnesota's shadow is "settled" too then, ha?

[Lakerblue]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Got nothing, ha?

Come on, YOU'RE the one who made this an indictment on Minnesota Hockey. Now all you have is a lame attempt at sarcasm? I guess the fact that Michigan Youth Hockey will always be in Minnesota's shadow is "settled" too then, ha?

I made no such remark, ever. In my life. Anywhere. At any time. I never indicted Minnesota hockey except for its involvement in the creation of the NCAA's CHL ban. You Minnesota types are awfully defensive. Disreali had a nice quote about statistics and lies . . . but I prefer this:

"He doesn't listen to what I say; quotes what I never said; and believes only what he himself says, and [darned] little of that. That man is either a slack headed fool, or he has the makings of a great Prime Minister." Benjamin Disreali, PM.

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

I made no such remark, ever. In my life. Anywhere. At any time. I never indicted Minnesota hockey except for its involvement in the creation of the NCAA's CHL ban. You Minnesota types are awfully defensive. Disreali had a nice quote about statistics and lies . . . but I prefer this:

"He doesn't listen to what I say; quotes what I never said; and believes only what he himself says, and **** little of that. That man is either a slack headed fool, or he has the makings of a great Prime Minister." Benjamin Disreali, PM.

Blaming the rule on Minnesota Hockey is an indictment of Minnesota Hockey. You're placing the sole blame for the rule on Minnesota Hockey, when in fact, you have absolutely no concrete evidence to support that. And as I pointed it, but you failed to comprehend and refused to reply to, it isn't "common knowledge". Why? Because it is a figment of your warped imagination.

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Posted again because Lakerblue either has reading comprehension issues, or is very selective in what he responds to because he knows he's dead wrong.


Minnesota Hockey is concerned about Minnesota Hockey. Most of us Minnesotans like the fact that we give our kids as many opportunites to play as possible, and we take pride in watching our own play. That doesn't mean we all want to dictate whom you have play for you.

It is true that the likes of John Mariucci and Herb Brooks were in favor of this rule, and many attribute where Minnesota Hockey is today to what they did to create opportunities for kids to play IN MINNESOTA. They also worked hard to get UMD and SCSU to the D1 level, and were major factors in Minnesota's "only recruit from within state" policy. Mariucci also refused to play Denver for a number of years because of the age of their roster (despite common misconceptions, it had nothing to do with the nationality of their roster).

However, to say that guys like Mariucci, Brooks, and others involved with Minnesota Hockey are the SOLE reason we have this rule is ridiculous. If you think AHAUS and now USA Hockey do everything just because Minnesota Hockey wants it that way, you've lost your mind. Case in point, the recent change to the Pewee Checking Rule.

[Lakerblue]

Re: Raids on Collge Hockey Programs

Blaming the rule on Minnesota Hockey is an indictment of Minnesota Hockey. You're placing the sole blame for the rule on Minnesota Hockey, when in fact, you have absolutely no concrete evidence to support that. And as I pointed it, but you failed to comprehend and refused to reply to, it isn't "common knowledge". Why? Because it is a figment of your warped imagination.

So you agree that the implimentation of this rule is an occassion for the placement of BLAME, not praise. You agree that this rule is something for which nobody would want to take the BLAME. You agree that this rule is so unpleasant and improper that whoever dreamed up this thing -- be it Minnesota, Herb Brooks, or Charlie Chaplin -- should be assigned BLAME. BLAME which denotes poor conduct, poor decision making, and poor implimentation.

I feel the same way. Once again, we agree.

Why are we arguing, then. Why not just end the rule and end the ban? Nothing more to argue about, right? My mention of Minnesota was based on the well known belief that the CHL ban originated out of Minnesota, and Marriucci in particular. But even if that not true, this rule is obviously nothing you want to take ownership of, right?

So why defend it? In fact, you aren't defending it. In fact, you are getting hot under the collar at the mere thought, the mere mention, by some random dude in Sault Ste. Marie, that somebody from or in Minnesota, 40 years ago, had a hand in getting this rule passed. Good. We agree.

Lets drop the rule -- as we argree. Its a win-win.