Well done Karl. I would say though, most NCAA backers I have seen have far less problems with CHL backers attesting to the advantages they see in going the "Canadian route" as they do the apparent unwillingness of many of these posters to acknowledge that there are areas where the CHL doesn't measure up to the NCAA. The paths are different. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
In a perfect world I would like to see all kids play 4 years of high school hockey and then 4 years of college puck. I do have strong faith in the community model and the benefits of a high school and college experience.
However, the realist in me realizes that this just isn't going to happen much anymore. Kids are constantly looking for an edge in their development and junior hockey allows them to sharpen their skills against higher competition.
I get that. But just because I understand and have come to accept the fact that kids are going to leave high school hockey early more-and-more, that doesn't mean I still don't believe in the community model or think there aren't inherent advantages to going the NCAA route. They aren't as mutually exclusive as you suggested.
JDUBBS1280 wrote:Well done Karl. I would say though, most NCAA backers I have seen have far less problems with CHL backers attesting to the advantages they see in going the "Canadian route" as they do the apparent unwillingness of many of these posters to acknowledge that there are areas where the CHL doesn't measure up to the NCAA.
This.
The CHL backers are typically unwilling to give the NCAA an ounce of credibility unless it's using a backhanded compliment like "perfect for late bloomers". Obviously, "perfect for late bloomers" is a worthless sentiment because the prospect wouldn't know he's a late bloomer until AFTER he's already signed a contract and voided his eligibility. "Oops, sorry we had to cut you. Looks like you should've gone NCAA after all!"
I have no problem with any kid going to the CHL if he wants to make hockey his life long career. Of course, most of the kids in the CHL won't make hockey their life long career, but if that was their assumption going in, responsibility for the outcome lies with them. I DO have a problem with anybody who thinks that the CHL is the perfect route for a kid who believes he might not be doing something other than hockey at the age of 32. Maybe he'll make the NHL, maybe he won't, but I would never criticize a kid for responsible contingency planning.
Well done Karl. I would say though, most NCAA backers I have seen have far less problems with CHL backers attesting to the advantages they see in going the "Canadian route" as they do the apparent unwillingness of many of these posters to acknowledge that there are areas where the CHL doesn't measure up to the NCAA. The paths are different. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
In a perfect world I would like to see all kids play 4 years of high school hockey and then 4 years of college puck. I do have strong faith in the community model and the benefits of a high school and college experience.
However, the realist in me realizes that this just isn't going to happen much anymore. Kids are constantly looking for an edge in their development and junior hockey allows them to sharpen their skills against higher competition.
I get that. But just because I understand and have come to accept the fact that kids are going to leave high school hockey early more-and-more, that doesn't mean I still don't believe in the community model or think there aren't inherent advantages to going the NCAA route. They aren't as mutually exclusive as you suggested.
Some good points here. There is certainly far more nuance to the NCAA-vs.-Canada argument than I suggested in that paragraph; my aim was more to suggest how the breakdown of barriers between different states' and countries' hockey leagues in the youth ranks have focused the main thrust of the debate on development. As long as we're framing the argument strictly in those terms, everything else is going to be shoved to the side.
It wasn't really my intent to make the two paths sound mutually exclusive; I don't think 10-30 high school kids leaving for juniors are at all a "threat" to community-based hockey. (AAA youth hockey might be a different story, but it also might not, and that's a much bigger can of worms that I don't want to open up right now.) My greater concern revolves around the unintended consequences that might come about as the barriers come down. They might be big, they might be small; they might be immediately obvious, or they might take a generation or two to become clear. (I'm young, and I have a long time horizon.) But they will exist.
Well done Karl. I would say though, most NCAA backers I have seen have far less problems with CHL backers attesting to the advantages they see in going the "Canadian route" as they do the apparent unwillingness of many of these posters to acknowledge that there are areas where the CHL doesn't measure up to the NCAA. The paths are different. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
In a perfect world I would like to see all kids play 4 years of high school hockey and then 4 years of college puck. I do have strong faith in the community model and the benefits of a high school and college experience.
However, the realist in me realizes that this just isn't going to happen much anymore. Kids are constantly looking for an edge in their development and junior hockey allows them to sharpen their skills against higher competition.
I get that. But just because I understand and have come to accept the fact that kids are going to leave high school hockey early more-and-more, that doesn't mean I still don't believe in the community model or think there aren't inherent advantages to going the NCAA route. They aren't as mutually exclusive as you suggested.
Some good points here. There is certainly far more nuance to the NCAA-vs.-Canada argument than I suggested in that paragraph; my aim was more to suggest how the breakdown of barriers between different states' and countries' hockey leagues in the youth ranks have focused the main thrust of the debate on development. As long as we're framing the argument strictly in those terms, everything else is going to be shoved to the side.
It wasn't really my intent to make the two paths sound mutually exclusive; I don't think 10-30 high school kids leaving for juniors are at all a "threat" to community-based hockey. (AAA youth hockey might be a different story, but it also might not, and that's a much bigger can of worms that I don't want to open up right now.) My greater concern revolves around the unintended consequences that might come about as the barriers come down. They might be big, they might be small; they might be immediately obvious, or they might take a generation or two to become clear. (I'm young, and I have a long time horizon.) But they will exist.
Well said Karl. Enjoy your work and appreciate you taking the time to clarify your thoughts on this.
