Change the sytem...get rid of juniors??

[riverskater]

Comparing the way recruiting and develpment happens between hockey and other mainline sports leaves me scratching my head. We send kids to juniors to develop...they have to "pay to play" and in most cases, pay for the chance to play. They don't have thier education, room or board payed for. They don't learn the system of the school they are going to play with.
In other sports in the USA, kids get recruited by going to testing (free+get things) rated, developed at the school they are recruited to (red shirt). They learn the system of the school, they are carried by the school during develpment and they work on thier academics. Why doesnt hockey do it that way?

[seek & destroy]

In many ways, hockey does do that. The difference is that in most cases college hockey wants players to go to Juniors for a year to finish developing their skills and bodies and then they start playing college hockey. Once they move up to college they work there way through the system on their college team while getting schooling (similar to what you described).

The best players go straight to college without the stopover in juniors. If you look at players going to college hockey this year, you will see many graduating seniors that are going straight to college. The fact is that other sports do not have the elaborate 'juniors' program that hockey has and therefore it isn't even an option. The juniors program does allow for more kids to have some time to develop and maybe get the chance to play college hockey...other sports typically don't get that opportunity. Of course, the trade off is that those kids live with host families and pay for any college courses they take while playing juniors.

The great thing is that we have so many avenues open for kids to play hockey. If they want to stay in H.S. they have the opportunity to play in our Elite league programs to add games and exposure to their schedule. If they want to move to Juniors early, there are many nearby teams and ways to tryout and make that choice. If they want to stay in H.S. and play multiple sports, the best players will still eventually be found because there are many scouts watching our H.S. programs and players.

Each player (and family) has to make the choice about what is important to them. I think that having choices is great and wouldn't want to change our system. The best players will always rise to the top and be found.

[O-townClown]

???

How would you 'get rid of' Juniors?

[hattrickhockey6]

You can't just get rid of juniors. Its a business. The owners of those teams dont care about developing players as much as they do making money.

[Observer85]

We send kids to juniors to develop...they have to "pay to play" and in most cases, pay for the chance to play. They don't have thier education, room or board payed for.

Kids go to Juniors to play at a higher level of competition. Development is a by product of that process. The only league in which you don't have to "pay to play" is Tier I - USHL. At this level, parents pay for nothing. If the kid chooses to go to take college classes then they have to pay for that.

At the Tier II level - NAHL, EJHL - yes it is true that it is a "pay to play" environment. Because of this, in 99% of the cases, the player should be already done with high school and therefore be using this level of play to continue their development in the hopes of finding a college fit for them.

They don't learn the system of the school they are going to play with.

College coaches look for players who can fill a need within their defined system. The ability of a player to adapt from his high school system to a junior system makes that player a better candidate for whatever school is recruiting him.

In other sports in the USA, kids get recruited by going to testing (free+get things) rated, developed at the school they are recruited to (red shirt). They learn the system of the school, they are carried by the school during develpment and they work on thier academics. Why doesnt hockey do it that way?

Hockey does not do it this way because they don't have the money that the "other" sports have. Primarily the 2 sports that red shirt their players so the can develop while attending school are football and men's basketball. Most other college sports are like hockey in that they lack the financial resources to red shirt their freshmen players.

[archway Sign]

I think what most people don't understand is Juniors are the norm. What we do in Minnesota is special in the hockey world. The rest of the world pays to play, hopes to end up in juniors and is some cases doesn't even want to play in college just the pros.

[Can't Never Tried]

We send kids to juniors to develop...they have to "pay to play" and in most cases, pay for the chance to play. They don't have thier education, room or board payed for.

Kids go to Juniors to play at a higher level of competition. Development is a by product of that process. The only league in which you don't have to "pay to play" is Tier I - USHL. At this level, parents pay for nothing. If the kid chooses to go to take college classes then they have to pay for that.

At the Tier II level - NAHL, EJHL - yes it is true that it is a "pay to play" environment. Because of this, in 99% of the cases, the player should be already done with high school and therefore be using this level of play to continue their development in the hopes of finding a college fit for them.

They don't learn the system of the school they are going to play with.

College coaches look for players who can fill a need within their defined system. The ability of a player to adapt from his high school system to a junior system makes that player a better candidate for whatever school is recruiting him.

In other sports in the USA, kids get recruited by going to testing (free+get things) rated, developed at the school they are recruited to (red shirt). They learn the system of the school, they are carried by the school during develpment and they work on thier academics. Why doesnt hockey do it that way?

Hockey does not do it this way because they don't have the money that the "other" sports have. Primarily the 2 sports that red shirt their players so the can develop while attending school are football and men's basketball. Most other college sports are like hockey in that they lack the financial resources to red shirt their freshmen players.

Generally from what I understand in the NAHL, the only cost to the players is a monthly charge that goes to the Billet family, and of course your personal needs costs.
http://www.nahl.com/players/NAHLRecruitingFAQ.cfm

So that's not really pay to play unless I'm missing something here.
That's pretty cheap IMO

[Observer85]

Generally from what I understand in the NAHL, the only cost to the players is a monthly charge that goes to the Billet family, and of course your personal needs costs.
http://www.nahl.com/players/NAHLRecruitingFAQ.cfm

So that's not really pay to play unless I'm missing something here.
That's pretty cheap IMO

Some NAHL families told me that last year they also had to pay for sticks which in the past had been covered by the organization. You are right, the other costs in the NAHL are covered by the team other than the billet fee. The EJHL is both a billet and partial ice time cost to the player's family.

The point I was attempting to make is at the USHL level there is no expense to the family/player. In fact at the end of the season, the equipment they provide for the player belongs to the player. At every other level this is not the case. All equipment is returned to the team when the player leaves after the completion of the season.

[riverskater]

It is cheap compared to the road to the hockey develpment road to that point but compare it with D-1a football. What if there were only full ride scholarships offered at D-1 hockey schools? What if the schools could have a red-shirt team for development? What if we offered a D-2 that could offer partials? All the while, allowing kids to get the education they need. D-3 schools while competative allow the others to continue to play at the next level and play more years.
I guess the question is "Would there more money for students if juniors were not there?" or "Could we do both?" I agree with the poster that said options are a good thing. I also had not considered that development is a by-product of juniors. I'm new to the hockey recruiting thing. It just seems strange to me that people can profit off of kids between high school and college. Maybe it is a lack of money overall. Is there enough money that the junior programs could subsidize or work with the college programs to provide an education (working toward a degree?) while the kid is in juniors?

[scoreboard33]

It is cheap compared to the road to the hockey develpment road to that point but compare it with D-1a football. What if there were only full ride scholarships offered at D-1 hockey schools? What if the schools could have a red-shirt team for development? What if we offered a D-2 that could offer partials? All the while, allowing kids to get the education they need. D-3 schools while competative allow the others to continue to play at the next level and play more years.
I guess the question is "Would there more money for students if juniors were not there?" or "Could we do both?" I agree with the poster that said options are a good thing. I also had not considered that development is a by-product of juniors. I'm new to the hockey recruiting thing. It just seems strange to me that people can profit off of kids between high school and college. Maybe it is a lack of money overall. Is there enough money that the junior programs could subsidize or work with the college programs to provide an education (working toward a degree?) while the kid is in juniors?

The main point is not enough colleges have enough money to make that development available. At Michigan, 100,000 people attend a football game there is plenty of money. College hockey doesn't have that, their are not enough schools to make a D2 division and one southern team plays college hockey. College Hockey is perhaps the most competitiive to play at the d1 level of any sport and that is where these junior programs came from. More schools, more money, their would be less junior players and some of the more expensive leagues would fold and we would be left with only a few teams. Juniors, outside of MN and eastern preps, are the only way for many players to develop. The AAA system works when you are young but not in high school and US NTDP only can take so many kids and even then the U17 team plays in the NAHL. Its hard to find a way to change the system.

[komada77]

Getting rid of juniors pretty much eliminates all the kids (with a few exceptions, of course) from every state in the U.S. other than Minnesota from getting serious looks by D1 coaches. No other state is even close to being good enough in terms of high school competition to really be able to tell who is great and who isn't.

[54fighting]

Accually that is not true. The prep schools out east and Tier 1 AAA organizations put more players directly into D1 schools than MN high schools do. In fact if you look at recuiting websites you will see that it is over a 2-1 ratio. Minnesota puts the most kids into D1 schools but they need the juniors route just as much if not more than some of the other areas of the country.

[Tenoverpar]

Komada77, you are SO ignorant with your post. You have no idea what is going on all over the country and actually think that the Minnesota High School system is actually better than the Midget Major hockey being played around the country?? Really?

High School hockey outside of Minnesota is relatively a club sport, with the exception of the New England Prep Schools, Mass Privates, some Privates in and around Philly and DC. Even in those locations, kids play before and after Midgets, with the JR Bruins in the EJ for example, a kid plays at Xavier in the Boston area for his 24 games, plays in the EJ for another 30 before and after.

You really just don't get the whole Tier 1 AAA thing going on do you? Look at the OHL draft (The OHL that leads the world in moving players to the NHL-not Minnesota) and see where they get their American born players. The USHL is littered with kids from all over the country, not just Minnesotans.

Fact is, with the number of players in Minnesota, we should be moving alot more than we do. Our pure numbers drive our output. How many top players are jumping ship this year out of high school to the USHL, 10-12 or more, why?????

[riverskater]

It has been my experience that D-1 schools have expressed interest (scholy) in a student and then sent them to juniors to develop. Thats why, before this discussion, I never considered development a by product of juniors.
A teammate of my son was told by one school to go to juniors for a year but another school took him right away. He did play juniors right after his senior year of high school competition, but never sat out a year of school. It seems to me that the current system kind of strings a lot of players along. But the positive side is that it allows kids to play at a higher level after high school, even if they don't play in college. Do you think that most kids who play juniors have the expectation or at least desire to play college hockey?

[Can't Never Tried]

It has been my experience that D-1 schools have expressed interest (scholy) in a student and then sent them to juniors to develop. Thats why, before this discussion, I never considered development a by product of juniors.
A teammate of my son was told by one school to go to juniors for a year but another school took him right away. He did play juniors right after his senior year of high school competition, but never sat out a year of school. It seems to me that the current system kind of strings a lot of players along. But the positive side is that it allows kids to play at a higher level after high school, even if they don't play in college. Do you think that most kids who play juniors have the expectation or at least desire to play college hockey?

If you are talking T1 or T2 Jr's... I'd say yes they probably do, and to many of them the desire does not stop at the college level.
These young men that put the effort in to bring them to the level of these leagues are, and have to be pretty dedicated in the 1st place, or they wouldn't be there.

[komada77]

Komada77, you are SO ignorant with your post. You have no idea what is going on all over the country and actually think that the Minnesota High School system is actually better than the Midget Major hockey being played around the country?? Really?

High School hockey outside of Minnesota is relatively a club sport, with the exception of the New England Prep Schools, Mass Privates, some Privates in and around Philly and DC. Even in those locations, kids play before and after Midgets, with the JR Bruins in the EJ for example, a kid plays at Xavier in the Boston area for his 24 games, plays in the EJ for another 30 before and after.

You really just don't get the whole Tier 1 AAA thing going on do you? Look at the OHL draft (The OHL that leads the world in moving players to the NHL-not Minnesota) and see where they get their American born players. The USHL is littered with kids from all over the country, not just Minnesotans.

Fact is, with the number of players in Minnesota, we should be moving alot more than we do. Our pure numbers drive our output. How many top players are jumping ship this year out of high school to the USHL, 10-12 or more, why?????

Which is why I said there are a few exceptions, but most kids can't afford $10,000 a year to play Midget AAA hockey. The ones that can have a shot, but what happens when there's a poor kid in Boston who's a hell of a hockey player? Is he supposed to dish out 25% of his parents' salary to play midget hockey, or even more than that for prep school tuition (Shattuck is someone in the neighborhood of $30,000 a year!!!)?? Don't be so quick to call me ignorant.

[jancze5]

Shattuck is actually 40K a year, but they have "financial aid" for needy families, so does Culver, so does Taft, so does Avon Old Farms, etc.
Good point on this discussion may be to simply identify that without JR's, a large portion of the rest of the country would be without a place to play in high school. We have the best of all the worlds right here. Although I'd still like to see AAA hockey at the Pee Major and Bantam Major level.

[riverskater]

Shattuck is actually 40K a year, but they have "financial aid" for needy families, so does Culver, so does Taft, so does Avon Old Farms, etc.
Good point on this discussion may be to simply identify that without JR's, a large portion of the rest of the country would be without a place to play in high school. We have the best of all the worlds right here. Although I'd still like to see AAA hockey at the Pee Major and Bantam Major level.

That is a good point, jancze5. What if we kept the current system but tweaked it to have D-1 schools pay for five years of a redshirt scholarshiped player. The benifit to the school is that they would have a year to learn the system and it could help with the pressure when a player leaves for the pros during school.

[huville]

Whoever stated that the EJHL is tier II is wrong. They are tier III and charge the maximum amount allowed by USA hockey which is around 7000 dollars a year. Plus billeting and equipment. So compare that to 2500-5000 for a year in the MNJHL plus the fact you may not have to billet and make the choice for yourself.

[O-townClown]

That is a good point, jancze5. What if we kept the current system but tweaked it to have D-1 schools pay for five years of a redshirt scholarshiped player. The benifit to the school is that they would have a year to learn the system and it could help with the pressure when a player leaves for the pros during school.

Clearly the direction for all NCAA sports is to find ways to commit to more scholarships in non-revenue sports. ??? WHAT

Scholarships in ALL sports are renewable annually. How do you come up with this stuff?

[riverskater]

That is a good point, jancze5. What if we kept the current system but tweaked it to have D-1 schools pay for five years of a redshirt scholarshiped player. The benifit to the school is that they would have a year to learn the system and it could help with the pressure when a player leaves for the pros during school.

Clearly the direction for all NCAA sports is to find ways to commit to more scholarships in non-revenue sports. ??? WHAT

Scholarships in ALL sports are renewable annually. How do you come up with this stuff?

D-1 mens hockey is a non-revenue sport? Scholarships maybe renewable every year but that generally means four years in hockey and five years in football.
Let me clarify the last statement in my last post. Right now when a hockey player leaves a school for the pro's in the middle of the year there is a hole in the roster. You can't just admit a kid out of juniors in the middle of the school year. If there were a redshirt system there would already be a high quality player that knows his schools system and could move up to fill the spot left in the roster.

[ACTUALFORMERPLAYER]

RIVERMAN You are Wrong. Players will not go to schools that are going to redshirt them.

Many players that transfer do so to a school that has a junior team close enough to play for while they sit out.

Is your hockey background so limited you do not remember when the U had a JV team?..... They didn't drop it because it was too successful.

If NCAA teams don't want players leaving during the season they should recruit individuals that are more mature and classy.

If US junior teams didn't exist there would be a mass exodus across the border.

[O-townClown]

River, Wayne State has dropped hockey. That leaves Bemidji's conference with four teams. US International and a few others are on the list of schools that dropped hockey. There aren't very many schools where revenue exceeds expenses. Basketball and football, because of TV dollars, are the only revenue sports. At a school like the University of Minnesota you may be able to include hockey, but it's a little different at Cornell, Omaha, Anchorage, or Quinnipiac.

You seem out of touch with today's realities.

[mch]

RIVERMAN You are Wrong. Players will not go to schools that are going to redshirt them.

Many players that transfer do so to a school that has a junior team close enough to play for while they sit out.

Is your hockey background so limited you do not remember when the U had a JV team?..... They didn't drop it because it was too successful.

If NCAA teams don't want players leaving during the season they should recruit individuals that are more mature and classy.

If US junior teams didn't exist there would be a mass exodus across the border.

good point

[riverskater]

RIVERMAN You are Wrong. Players will not go to schools that are going to redshirt them.

Many players that transfer do so to a school that has a junior team close enough to play for while they sit out.

Is your hockey background so limited you do not remember when the U had a JV team?..... They didn't drop it because it was too successful.
If NCAA teams don't want players leaving during the season they should recruit individuals that are more mature and classy.

If US junior teams didn't exist there would be a mass exodus across the border.

You think players would rather pay and take a year off of school or leave than get all expenses and an education?
My hockey background is limited and I would like to hear more about the failed U of M JV team. Who did they play? Were they on scholarship? What was the resistance?
What I am hearing is that there are not enough revenues in hockey to support a redshirt system. Could that change? Doesnt it seem ironic that there are people making a profit off of kids before college, but there are not enough revenues in some D-1 cases to even provide full rides?
Anytime someone looks outside of the box, it seems they are out of touch with reality but it's the only way positive change can happen. I love hockey and I would like to see it compete with other major sports. We can either say, "it will never happen" or we can start by asking hard questions until we find a direction to go...and probably fail, succeed,fail and succeed.
Currently, there are a few athletes that will need to make a decision on playing football or hockey, If you were thier parent, what would you recommend?