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

[juniorhockey]

I think the bulk of the reason that you believe Junior is a waste is lack of knowledge.

214 players from Minnesota played Division I hockey according to a report put out in Dec. of 06'. The link to the article is below. If you divide that by four years of school you get a little over 50 players/ grad. year coming out of Minnesota. We'll just say 50 to account for players who get injured and use the fifth year of eligibility. Meanwhile there are 29 Minnesota players committed and going to a College currently for either 08 or 09 that graduated. (I used Heisenberg site as a reference which is listed below as well) And that number includes the seven Shattuck St. Mary's players as well.

My point is: Nearly 20 kids a year from Minnesota will go to Junior and earn DI college opportunities. The rest will basically assure themselves a DIII spot somewhere (I don't have stats for this but I don't think it would be hard to find players who played Tier I or II who didn't find themselves with DIII opportunities as well).

Those twenty kids over a four year span make up roughly 40% of all Minnesotans in College Hockey, yet some of you fail to see it's importance. When you factor in that the majority of kids that commit in H.S. to DI schools are asked to play Junior first to more ready themselves, the importance of Junior hockey increases even more.

Lastly, if you think people are getting rich or even making money off your kids playing Junior hockey you are wrong. USA Hockey Junior council meeting minutes show discussion as to why only 10 of the US's 150+ Junior teams made money. That doesn't even say how much, or in this case, how little they made.





http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/7Arc ... l_0512.htm

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... sjRw&gid=3

http://www.usahockey.com/uploadedFiles/ ... inutes.pdf

[Gopher Blog]

College hockey will never be on the level of college football or college basketball in this country. That is unrealistic. It is mainly a regional sport whose reach is going to be limited because of cost factors, participation levels around the country, etc.

It is economically unfeasible to think a JV system or red shirt system has any potential. Many D1 hockey teams (mainly at smaller schools) fund the bulk of their athletic department’s budget because the rest of their athletic programs are money drains. The idea that these athletic departments are going to want to throw money into another money drain is hard to fathom.

Any kid with a decent pro future is not going to waste a year of development time after high school by not playing any games and simply practicing as a red shirt. Maybe a marginal player with few pro options in the long run would do that but not any kid with decent or better potential to take a shot at the pros. Pro scouts/teams want to see development and the best way to judge is in the competitive environment of games.

I think it is particularly unrealistic to think players whose NHL draft year coincides with their first year out of HS are going to want to red shirt rather than play juniors. You think a kid is going to sit out and just practice when he could play juniors and do whatever he can to catch the eyes of pro scouts and try to increase his draft status? Not quite.

[O-townClown]

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?

We ALL love hockey. So what?

"only way a positive change can happen"

Can you please give me one reason getting rid of Juniors would be a 'positive change'? Where would kids play? Gee son, you are a terrific hockey player. Too bad your career ends after Bantams. Blame river. He did away with Juniors, despite the fact nobody had any problem with it and it can support itself.

At the high end the USHL draws better than D3 hockey. At lower levels kids pay to play hockey...which is no different than Youth hockey from Squirts through Midget.

You think you are "outside the box". In reality you just have no idea.

[packerboy]

Can you please give me one reason getting rid of Juniors would be a 'positive change'?

I can.

Kids would stay in high school until they graduated.

Then kids would go to college and not some town in Iowa to play hockey for one or two years before college.

That's what kids did for decades until the last 10 years or so.

Some might reasonably consider that positive.

[riverskater]

I think the bulk of the reason that you believe Junior is a waste is lack of knowledge.

214 players from Minnesota played Division I hockey according to a report put out in Dec. of 06'. The link to the article is below. If you divide that by four years of school you get a little over 50 players/ grad. year coming out of Minnesota. We'll just say 50 to account for players who get injured and use the fifth year of eligibility. Meanwhile there are 29 Minnesota players committed and going to a College currently for either 08 or 09 that graduated. (I used Heisenberg site as a reference which is listed below as well) And that number includes the seven Shattuck St. Mary's players as well.

My point is: Nearly 20 kids a year from Minnesota will go to Junior and earn DI college opportunities. The rest will basically assure themselves a DIII spot somewhere (I don't have stats for this but I don't think it would be hard to find players who played Tier I or II who didn't find themselves with DIII opportunities as well).

Those twenty kids over a four year span make up roughly 40% of all Minnesotans in College Hockey, yet some of you fail to see it's importance. When you factor in that the majority of kids that commit in H.S. to DI schools are asked to play Junior first to more ready themselves, the importance of Junior hockey increases even more.

Lastly, if you think people are getting rich or even making money off your kids playing Junior hockey you are wrong. USA Hockey Junior council meeting minutes show discussion as to why only 10 of the US's 150+ Junior teams made money. That doesn't even say how much, or in this case, how little they made.





http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/7Arc ... l_0512.htm

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... sjRw&gid=3

http://www.usahockey.com/uploadedFiles/ ... inutes.pdf

Thank you for the response and resources. I did not say that juniors is a waste, I am just questioning if there is a better system? There is a quote in the junior council minutes you linked under "New Buisiness" it says "Scholarships are now allowed by NCAA with many conditions. Need must be established by a review of information submitted by the parents and/or player. The review must be completed by an established committee from the team and all players must be eligible to get a scholarship based on need." Do you have any other information on this scholarship? I am assuming it is from the NCAA for students to play juniors?

[pioneers]

Can you please give me one reason getting rid of Juniors would be a 'positive change'?

I can.

Kids would stay in high school until they graduated.

Then kids would go to college and not some town in Iowa to play hockey for one or two years before college.

That's what kids did for decades until the last 10 years or so.

Some might reasonably consider that positive.

This could happen if the junior leagues agreed to only take kids after they are done with High School. Doubt that would ever happen however.

[O-townClown]

I can.

Kids would stay in high school until they graduated.

Then kids would go to college and not some town in Iowa to play hockey for one or two years before college.

That's what kids did for decades until the last 10 years or so.

Some might reasonably consider that positive.

So where will kids play from Bantams on? In Minnesota and Massachusetts they'll play Varsity HS hockey. In Michigan they'll play U16 and U18 Midget. Now how about everyone else?

Colleges have little use for players straight from HS. Like it or not, American-only teams got tired of losing to teams like Lake Superior State (two national championships in the 90s) that are loaded with kids that played through age 20 in Canada.

Expand your horizons. No one is making Minnesotans leave for Iowa. To kids in Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta, Ohio, and New Jersey that Iowa option is a godsend.

Do away with Juniors and you may as well do away with USA Hockey while you are at it.

[komada77]

I can.

Kids would stay in high school until they graduated.

Then kids would go to college and not some town in Iowa to play hockey for one or two years before college.

That's what kids did for decades until the last 10 years or so.

Some might reasonably consider that positive.

So where will kids play from Bantams on? In Minnesota and Massachusetts they'll play Varsity HS hockey. In Michigan they'll play U16 and U18 Midget. Now how about everyone else?

Colleges have little use for players straight from HS. Like it or not, American-only teams got tired of losing to teams like Lake Superior State (two national championships in the 90s) that are loaded with kids that played through age 20 in Canada.

Expand your horizons. No one is making Minnesotans leave for Iowa. To kids in Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta, Ohio, and New Jersey that Iowa option is a godsend.

Do away with Juniors and you may as well do away with USA Hockey while you are at it.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Well said, O-town

[goldy313]

If the NCAA actually enforced its amateur rules in hockey like they do in other sports it would be a non issue, sure you'd have kids leaving or playing in pay to play leagues like they do in baseball and basketball summer leagues now but the USHL would cease to exist as we know it.

Colleges do use plenty of kids straight out of high school, just not the WCHA, most East Coast schools use a limited number of 20 year old freshmen. BC will have only 2 kids with 86-87 birthdates that are not seniors this season, they've had a nice run as of late with non AARP eligible juniors and seniors.

Years ago Minnesota and nearly every D1 hockey program had a JV program, Title IX has made that obsolete so Junior leagues sprang up to fill the void, you ask any D1 coach and I bet to a man they'd rather have an 18 year old freshman in their fold than playing juniors but that's not the reality anymore, they can't offer them anything.

[/b]

[packerboy]

So where will kids play from Bantams on? In Minnesota and Massachusetts they'll play Varsity HS hockey. In Michigan they'll play U16 and U18 Midget. Now how about everyone else?

Colleges have little use for players straight from HS. Like it or not, American-only teams got tired of losing to teams like Lake Superior State (two national championships in the 90s) that are loaded with kids that played through age 20 in Canada.

Expand your horizons. No one is making Minnesotans leave for Iowa. To kids in Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta, Ohio, and New Jersey that Iowa option is a godsend.

Do away with Juniors and you may as well do away with USA Hockey while you are at it.

You asked for positives of eliminating Juniors and I gave you 2.

I didnt say that juniors should be eliminated, I just gave you some reasons why it would be good if they were, as requested.

And just because some people don't embrace the latest trend and follow it around like scared, dumb sheep doesnt mean they need to "broaden their horizons."

[O-townClown]

Packer, problem is that you are wrong about what would happen. You do away with Juniors and the HS kids in question will leave for U18 Midgets.

"Latest trend"? Juniors have always been around. Minnesotans have been more interested in it since colleges stopped looking for players straight out of HS.

The whole discussion is nonsensical anyway, as the trend at USA Hockey has been to expand Juniors. You can hypothesize all you want about doing away with Juniors and it won't happen.

Seems like you are the one that considers not playing in Iowa a positive, not "some people". And I can't think of any kids that dropped out of HS to play Junior hockey. There might be some, but it is clearly the norm to finish HS while playing Juniors for kids that haven't graduated.
[/u]

[packerboy]

The whole discussion is nonsensical anyway, as the trend at USA Hockey has been to expand Juniors.
Seems like you are the one that considers not playing in Iowa a positive, not "some people". And I can't think of any kids that dropped out of HS to play Junior hockey.[/u]

O-town, I think you are a little out of touch on this issue.

Just scroll down/up a few topics and read the "Who's not coming back to high school next year" thread. Minnesot HS hockey has been losing a number of top players for quite a few years now and they leave in their senior year to go play Juniors in the USHL.

It is what it is but its a disturbing thing to many, many HS hockey fans and communities. Your assertion that they would leave MN high school hockey to play Midgets somewhere is unfounded.

USA Hockey has no affiliation with either the USHL nor the NAHL as far as I know so I dont know what you mean by they are expanding it.

I think you are confusing USA Junior Hockey Teams with Junior Leagues.

[Idiot]

The whole discussion is nonsensical anyway, as the trend at USA Hockey has been to expand Juniors.
Seems like you are the one that considers not playing in Iowa a positive, not "some people". And I can't think of any kids that dropped out of HS to play Junior hockey.[/u]

O-town, I think you are a little out of touch on this issue.

Just scroll down/up a few topics and read the "Who's not coming back to high school next year" thread. Minnesot HS hockey has been losing a number of top players for quite a few years now and they leave in their senior year to go play Juniors in the USHL.

It is what it is but its a disturbing thing to many, many HS hockey fans and communities. Your assertion that they would leave MN high school hockey to play Midgets somewhere is unfounded.

USA Hockey has no affiliation with either the USHL nor the NAHL as far as I know so I dont know what you mean by they are expanding it.
I think you are confusing USA Junior Hockey Teams with Junior Leagues.

Not so fast packerboy, both the USHL and the NAHL are leagues governed by USA hockey. They follow USA hockey guidelines and were placed in thier respective tiers through USA hockey. I am pretty sure all junior leagues are products of USA Hockey. If you look at the websites and read the about sections you will find the affiliations.

[Blue&Gold]

The whole discussion is nonsensical anyway, as the trend at USA Hockey has been to expand Juniors.
Seems like you are the one that considers not playing in Iowa a positive, not "some people". And I can't think of any kids that dropped out of HS to play Junior hockey.[/u]

O-town, I think you are a little out of touch on this issue.

Just scroll down/up a few topics and read the "Who's not coming back to high school next year" thread. Minnesot HS hockey has been losing a number of top players for quite a few years now and they leave in their senior year to go play Juniors in the USHL.

It is what it is but its a disturbing thing to many, many HS hockey fans and communities. Your assertion that they would leave MN high school hockey to play Midgets somewhere is unfounded.

USA Hockey has no affiliation with either the USHL nor the NAHL as far as I know so I dont know what you mean by they are expanding it.

I think you are confusing USA Junior Hockey Teams with Junior Leagues.

Packerboy, remind me as to your stance on kids transferring between schools in MN... I don't remember where you stand on that (non)issue, but if you're also against kids being able to transfer to other schools to play hockey, you can see why they then move on to the juniors.

Example, kid has played varsity hockey since he was an 8th grader, and was a top player on that team. The team happens to be a single A school, and after 4 years it's obvious that playing high school hockey at that level isn't going to help him to improve at all, yet he can't transfer to one of the top AA programs due to the new rules being placed on that process. What's he to do if he wants to take his hockey to the next level and he isn't a player to pad his points in order to be listed in that category but wants to push himself to excel? Answer: he goes and plays in the USHL his senior year, comes back to graduate with his class, goes back and has a second great season, while ending up with a full-ride D1 scholarship. He's a better player than he ever would have been playing in high school. He's not one of the few that will get their commitment while in high school, and if he had it probably wouldn't have been a full scholarship.

Those who want to keep MN High School hockey in the dark ages are going to continue to be disappointed. The times have moved to where post-high school is being considered because most of the kids will move away from their home towns anyway.

[O-townClown]

O-town, I think you are a little out of touch on this issue.

Just scroll down/up a few topics and read the "Who's not coming back to high school next year" thread. Minnesot HS hockey has been losing a number of top players for quite a few years now and they leave in their senior year to go play Juniors in the USHL.

It is what it is but its a disturbing thing to many, many HS hockey fans and communities. Your assertion that they would leave MN high school hockey to play Midgets somewhere is unfounded.

USA Hockey has no affiliation with either the USHL nor the NAHL as far as I know so I dont know what you mean by they are expanding it.

I think you are confusing USA Junior Hockey Teams with Junior Leagues.

I'm not confused at all here, nor am I 'out of touch'.

Just like All Star Wrestling was "sanctioned by the AAAAY DUBBAYOOOUUU AAAAY", Junior hockey is sanctioned by USA Hockey.

The following links provide contact information for the USA Hockey sanctioned junior leagues.

Tier-I United States Hockey League
Tier-II North American Hockey League
Tier-III Jr. A Atlantic Junior Hockey League
Eastern Junior Hockey League
Central States Hockey League
Minnesota Junior Hockey League
Northern Pacific Hockey League
Western States Hockey League
Tier-III Jr. B Continental Hockey Association - Premier
Empire Junior Hockey League
Metropolitan Junior Hockey League
Tier-III Jr. C Continental Hockey Association - Selects
Great Lakes Junior Hockey League
Southeastern Junior Hockey League
Independent Teams

"Who's not coming back to HS" next year is definitely a Minnesota-only issue. The rest of the country really doesn't care. You say kids leave for their 11th and 12th grade years to play Juniors, but then assume they wouldn't leave if you "get rid of Juniors" - which is what this thread is about.

You're wrong.

Junior hockey allows kids to play up through age 20, so at least players can finish high school and then play two seasons there. Do away with Juniors and what happens?

Now you have a clock that runs to age 18, not 20. These Minnesota kids in question that desire to play elsewhere will go play for Shattuck, PF Chang's, Russell Stover, Little Caesars, Victory Honda, Chicago Mission, LA Kings, and whatever other teams play at the elite U18 AAA Midget level. Doing away with Juniors doesn't change that. (Hard to know for sure, but it could even accelerate the move. Think of it this way. Americans only have until age 18 before they do what? Colleges are looking to bring players in at age 19 instead of 21. I'm assuming the Canadians do away with Juniors too in this Bizarro-world what if.)

You say this is disturbing to many, many HS fans and communities. Recognize that it isn't on the plate for anyone outside of Minnesota and that USA Hockey is increasing Junior hockey. Last season a bunch of teams were moved up from Jr. B to Tier III Jr. A and this year the whole Southeastern League moves from Jr. C to Jr. B.

It seems like you aren't aware of what is going on nationally and how that affects what happens locally in Minnesota.

Credit Minnesotans for doing a lot to make staying at home a desirable option. Lengthening games, creating the HS Elite League, and being receptive to kids playing in the USHL before and after HS Varsity seasons helps a lot. Despite this, several kids still leave their home HS for the Junior hockey option.

[packerboy]

O-town, The name of this forum is Minnesota Boy's High School Hockey.

We in Minnesota know that kids leaving high school in areas where they dont play High School Hockey is of little impact. But we also know that in areas where high schol hockey is a big factor in player development, losing players to Juniors is a negative thing for the league.

When you lose players, especially those considered the best, its a negative for the league. Eliminating that would be a positive for the league.

As far as keeping MN HS hockey in the dark ages, B&G , how does the USHL bring us into the light?

Does depleting the player pool modernize things for us?

People can debate the merits of Juniors but one thing that isnt debatable is that it hurts HS Hockey when it takes some of its best players.

O-town asked for a negative, thats one. Blowing it off by saying it only affects Minnesota is like saying a bad economy only effects people with money. MN HS Hockey is important to hockey.

[MNHockeyFan]

People can debate the merits of Juniors but one thing that isnt debatable is that it hurts HS Hockey when it takes some of its best players.

All true but unfortunately there isn't anything that can be done about it, other than everyone doing whatever they can to provide the best experience possible at the high school level, so players won't have as much incentive to leave early.

As a fan of the college game I also regret the trend for the most promising young players to leave early for the pros. There's at least more hope there as the college coaches will hopefully be successful in working out something more reasonable with the NHL. I don't see the USHL making an exception just to try to accommodate what's best for Minnesota high school hockey.

[Blue&Gold]

O-town, The name of this forum is Minnesota Boy's High School Hockey.

We in Minnesota know that kids leaving high school in areas where they dont play High School Hockey is of little impact. But we also know that in areas where high schol hockey is a big factor in player development, (FOR THOSE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO PLAY IN ONE OF THE FEW TOP PROGRAMS) losing players to Juniors is a negative thing for the league. (MEANING, BAD FOR MN HIGH SCHOOL HOCKEY)

When you lose players, especially those considered the best, its a negative for the league. Eliminating that would be a positive for the league. (EXCEPT YOU FORGET THAT YOUNGER KIDS LIKE TO EMULATE SUCCESS, AND SEEING TOP PLAYERS GO PLAY FOR USHL TEAMS AND THEN CONTRIBUTE TO D1 PROGRAMS AND THAT PLAYING HIGH SCHOOL HOCKEY MAY GET THEM THERE....)

As far as keeping MN HS hockey in the dark ages, B&G , how does the USHL bring us into the light? (BRINGS US TO THE PRESENT/FUTURE OF HOCKEY.)

Does depleting the player pool modernize things for us? (PRETTY MUCH, YES.)

People can debate the merits of Juniors but one thing that isnt debatable is that it hurts HS Hockey when it takes some of its best players.

O-town asked for a negative, thats one. Blowing it off by saying it only affects Minnesota is like saying a bad economy only effects people with money. MN HS Hockey is important to hockey. (NO, MN HS HOCKEY IS ONLY IMPORTANT TO MN HIGH SCHOOL HOCKEY.)

About 7 years or so, I predicted that we would start to see the down-side of HS hockey as juniors and major midgets/AAA hockey found its way into MN and got stronger and stronger. Bernie McBain and MN Made hockey is going to really push this, and it won't be long that the talent won't be playing for high schools. I'll be honest and say that Open enrollment and player movement probably made it happen sooner than might have happened. (don't blame just private schools, Elk River was one of the biggest "offenders" of getting players through OE)

Ten years ago the USHL couldn't make it in MN. Now I'm not so sure that one or two USHL teams couldn't be successful in our great state. Many of the players would probably be seniors and just graduated MN players, but the players would go there if it were offered.

Many people won't like it, but the importance of MN HS Hockey is waining. You can still go watch some great games, but realize that it's not the end-all any more and good players wanting more will go find it.

[riverskater]

Options for kids is a good thing. But I think it could be a win-win for minnesota hockey if we could give the option to red-shirt, playing a similar schedule (competion wise and number of games) of juniors and having your education payed for. I did hear that there is just not enough money in hockey to do that.
I still have a few questions: Is it true that The NCAA can now provide scholarships to junior players demonstrating need? If that is true, and if there is no money particularly in smaller D-1 programs, doesnt it seem that the direction of $$ is going the wrong way?
If there were only 10 junior programs out of 150 that made $ and if player development is only a by product of juniors and most, if not all kids playing juniors are trying to get a scholarship, than what is the main purpose of juniors? I assume to provide a higher level of competition, mainly for the rest of the US. Is the cost/benefit worth it? Maybe it is, but we better have the courage to ask the questions.
Any ideas on how a NCAA JV system could work?
Last question, again, If you had a son that was being recruited for both D-1 hockey and another major sport, how would you advise him?

[riverskater]

O-town, I think you are a little out of touch on this issue.

Just scroll down/up a few topics and read the "Who's not coming back to high school next year" thread. Minnesot HS hockey has been losing a number of top players for quite a few years now and they leave in their senior year to go play Juniors in the USHL.

It is what it is but its a disturbing thing to many, many HS hockey fans and communities. Your assertion that they would leave MN high school hockey to play Midgets somewhere is unfounded.

USA Hockey has no affiliation with either the USHL nor the NAHL as far as I know so I dont know what you mean by they are expanding it.

I think you are confusing USA Junior Hockey Teams with Junior Leagues.

I'm not confused at all here, nor am I 'out of touch'.

Just like All Star Wrestling was "sanctioned by the AAAAY DUBBAYOOOUUU AAAAY", Junior hockey is sanctioned by USA Hockey.

The following links provide contact information for the USA Hockey sanctioned junior leagues.

Tier-I United States Hockey League
Tier-II North American Hockey League
Tier-III Jr. A Atlantic Junior Hockey League
Eastern Junior Hockey League
Central States Hockey League
Minnesota Junior Hockey League
Northern Pacific Hockey League
Western States Hockey League
Tier-III Jr. B Continental Hockey Association - Premier
Empire Junior Hockey League
Metropolitan Junior Hockey League
Tier-III Jr. C Continental Hockey Association - Selects
Great Lakes Junior Hockey League
Southeastern Junior Hockey League
Independent Teams

"Who's not coming back to HS" next year is definitely a Minnesota-only issue. The rest of the country really doesn't care. You say kids leave for their 11th and 12th grade years to play Juniors, but then assume they wouldn't leave if you "get rid of Juniors" - which is what this thread is about.

You're wrong.

Junior hockey allows kids to play up through age 20, so at least players can finish high school and then play two seasons there. Do away with Juniors and what happens?

Now you have a clock that runs to age 18, not 20.

These Minnesota kids in question that desire to play elsewhere will go play for Shattuck, PF Chang's, Russell Stover, Little Caesars, Victory Honda, Chicago Mission, LA Kings, and whatever other teams play at the elite U18 AAA Midget level. Doing away with Juniors doesn't change that. (Hard to know for sure, but it could even accelerate the move. Think of it this way. Americans only have until age 18 before they do what? Colleges are looking to bring players in at age 19 instead of 21. I'm assuming the Canadians do away with Juniors too in this Bizarro-world what if.)

You say this is disturbing to many, many HS fans and communities. Recognize that it isn't on the plate for anyone outside of Minnesota and that USA Hockey is increasing Junior hockey. Last season a bunch of teams were moved up from Jr. B to Tier III Jr. A and this year the whole Southeastern League moves from Jr. C to Jr. B.

It seems like you aren't aware of what is going on nationally and how that affects what happens locally in Minnesota.

Credit Minnesotans for doing a lot to make staying at home a desirable option. Lengthening games, creating the HS Elite League, and being receptive to kids playing in the USHL before and after HS Varsity seasons helps a lot. Despite this, several kids still leave their home HS for the Junior hockey option.

Having to make a decision by age 18 is a good thing. Every other major sport is that way. It keeps kids from chasing unrealistic expectations and allows them to get on with their lives if playing hockey at the next level is not in the cards.

[O-townClown]

1. O-town, The name of this forum is Minnesota Boy's High School Hockey.

2. We in Minnesota know that kids leaving high school in areas where they dont play High School Hockey is of little impact. 3. But we also know that in areas where high schol hockey is a big factor in player development, losing players to Juniors is a negative thing for the league.

4. When you lose players, especially those considered the best, its a negative for the league. Eliminating that would be a positive for the league.

5. As far as keeping MN HS hockey in the dark ages, B&G , how does the USHL bring us into the light?

Does depleting the player pool modernize things for us?

6. People can debate the merits of Juniors but one thing that isnt debatable is that it hurts HS Hockey when it takes some of its best players.

7. O-town asked for a negative, thats one. Blowing it off by saying it only affects Minnesota is like saying a bad economy only effects people with money. MN HS Hockey is important to hockey.

1. Yes it is. And the thread is on somehow "doing away with Juniors".
2. I disagree. When Patrick Kane or this whiz-kid 14-year-old from California hit it big it opens peoples eyes in Minnesota about how good kids can be.
3. Maybe so, but it isn't a negative for the kid in question. These kids aren't slaves to Park Rapids, I-Falls, or whatever town they lived in as a youth.
4. Says you. Some other kid gets icetime and the teams that play against them have an easier time winning. There may be some negatives, but it isn't like we are absent silver-lining positives.
5. Like it or not, WCHA and CCHA programs have sought more seasoned kids than they can find in the HS ranks. Considering colleges recruit Junior players, it is a wonderful option compared to playing Junior in Canada. In my era, I think Dave Shute and Brad Stepan did that.
6. Last I checked NCAA basketball was in fine shape and they regularly lose players to the NBA. It isn't like Minnesota HS hockey is in ruins.
7. How is Minnesota HS hockey any more "important to hockey" than elite AAA Midget or USHL Juniors? Seems like you have an incredibly ethnocentric view. Isn't it "important for hockey" that high level players be challenged?

I'm no advocate for Minnesotans leaving their HS to attend another and play in the USHL or NTDP. Or even NAHL. However...kids do it and that's their right. It wasn't long ago there were about 40 Minnesotans playing elsewhere when they could have played HS and last season there were about 15. I'd say that's a testament to the quality of the hockey, quality of the experience, and belief in changes that have seen schedules expand and the creation of the HS Elite League.

The problem, which you haven't seemed to come to grips with, is that you can't "save" HS hockey. A kid like Seth Ambroz would most likely have stayed at his HS in the 80s because there wasn't anywhere better to go. (Some kids did play USHL, but not many.) Today he can stay at home, play for a private school, go to Shattuck, hit the Midget AAA circuit, or play Juniors. Because of the growth of hockey there are more choices. You think that's a bad thing.

It matters not how one feels about this topic, the reality is that things have changed and people should recognize it. The US used to win Olympic gold in basketball (and even hockey) with college players. While you can say you liked it better when it was just college-age amateurs, they wouldn't win (or even come close) with a college team so it isn't like that any more.

I think there is a big difference between a player like Joe Gleason finishing HS and then going to Juniors at the suggestion of his college coach and a player that uproots himself while still in HS. Even though there's a difference, it is not possible to close the option.

[packerboy]

Minnesota HS hockey is important to hockey and always has been.

It isnt more important than any other part of hockey. But no other part of hockey is more important than it, even for the most talented, atl east for a given period of time.

We all know how many MN players there are playing in college and pros.
The MN player is highly regarded world wide
We all know that is the case,in part, due to MN HS Hockey.


Many of them developed their interest in hockey initially because of HS hockey and especially the state tournament and the dream to play in it. The USHL had nothing to do with it.

To say that hurting MN HS hockey doesnt matter is , IMO , not an enlightned new approach.

It's about as far sighted as Mr Magoo.

I dont think HS hockey is in ruins and I know people do what they feel is in their best interests in going to Juniors.

Juniors is beneficial to hockey also but there is a price to pay when it depletes another very benefical program. To not recognize that or to disregard it may be the now thing but it may cause long term consequences that are not so good.

[O-townClown]

Juniors is beneficial to hockey also but there is a price to pay when it depletes another very benefical program. To not recognize that or to disregard it may be the now thing but it may cause long term consequences that are not so good.

You're typing a lot, but saying virtually nothing. Minnesota is a wonderful hockey state. That's never been questioned. It is why USA Hockey leaves the area alone.

The 'debate' about Juniors and what to do about it was already settled. Minnesotans have increased and lengthened HS games and added the HS Elite League. Is there more than can be done? Perhaps. Do you have proposals? If so, you haven't shared them.

Your posts come across like a crusty old dude longing for days of yore. When someone sees how things are and can explain why that is it doesn't mean they've taken sides. It means they've accepted it. Which, to me, is the only way to move forward.

Has Minnesota Hockey been hurt by the growth of the sport in other parts of the country?

No.

Has it been affected?

Absolutely.

You see that it has, but don't want to accept it.

[Blue&Gold]

Packerboy, you didn't respond to my question regarding open-enrollment. If there is one thing that has driven the MN HS player to look beyond their own high school program, it was the active movement of top players to different school programs. (IMHO, of course) It gave the taste of such success to the masses, and top players started to realize that there is a better way to get high-end experience. The HS Elite program did a fair job of off-setting the trend, but the bottom line is the cream is looking for more, and over time the top players will be few in HS, but the program will continue on.

Let me ask you this... what is a local high school, say Rogers for instance, going to do for the kid that stays his senior year instead of going to Sioux Falls, for the good of his local school? (Let's assume that he has this chance...) How can they make up for the fact that Fred has passed up the chance to play in front of 4 to 20 college and pro scouts, 63 games a season plus playoffs? The school's team won't make it to THE SHOW, but they might win 75% of their games because of Fred. Of course, Fred only really had to play hard in 6 of his 26 games, and just coasted through the rest because there was no competition.. He might get to play in front of scouts during the Elite League, assuming that he gets that elusive invite... but then he will disappear due to his program and it's schedule. (Rogers just came to me, we can use any school that you want for the example, maybe Detroit Lakes or something...)

OR, are you saying the it's OK for Fred to move on, but if he played for one of the 8 top programs in the area, then he should have to stay??

I'm not hoping for the end of HS hockey as we know it, but the horizon shows that things will change and we can't stop it. However, let me state that although some will move on every year, it really isn't THAT many, is it? I think that you want to fix something that isn't really that big of a deal.

[packerboy]

Packerboy, you didn't respond to my question regarding open-enrollment. If there is one thing that has driven the MN HS player to look beyond their own high school program, it was the active movement of top players to different school programs. (IMHO, of course) It gave the taste of such success to the masses, and top players started to realize that there is a better way to get high-end experience. The HS Elite program did a fair job of off-setting the trend, but the bottom line is the cream is looking for more, and over time the top players will be few in HS, but the program will continue on.

Let me ask you this... what is a local high school, say Rogers for instance, going to do for the kid that stays his senior year instead of going to Sioux Falls, for the good of his local school? (Let's assume that he has this chance...) How can they make up for the fact that Fred has passed up the chance to play in front of 4 to 20 college and pro scouts, 63 games a season plus playoffs? The school's team won't make it to THE SHOW, but they might win 75% of their games because of Fred. Of course, Fred only really had to play hard in 6 of his 26 games, and just coasted through the rest because there was no competition.. He might get to play in front of scouts during the Elite League, assuming that he gets that elusive invite... but then he will disappear due to his program and it's schedule. (Rogers just came to me, we can use any school that you want for the example, maybe Detroit Lakes or something...)

OR, are you saying the it's OK for Fred to move on, but if he played for one of the 8 top programs in the area, then he should have to stay??

I'm not hoping for the end of HS hockey as we know it, but the horizon shows that things will change and we can't stop it. However, let me state that although some will move on every year, it really isn't THAT many, is it? I think that you want to fix something that isn't really that big of a deal.

I dont know what effect OE had on all of this. Its just one part of an attitude/approach that has been around for years.

As far as Fred goes, I dont care about Fred.

Thats not because of indifference to Fred but because I think if Fred is really a good player, he will do fine.

There have been a lot of kids who have played HS hockey with programs that are less than top flight who play and do very well at the next level and beyond. It would be interesting to go back and see every year what % of Seniors getting college scholarships played on a AA state tournament team.

If Fred wants to coast, I cant do much for him anyway. If Fred is going to use playing on a bad team as an excuse to underachieve, he aint goin anywhere.

O-town, you sound like a guy who likes to talk but not listen.
You asked for one positive of Juniors not existing. I gave you one.

I did not say that Juniors should be banned nor did I propose such a thing.

In addition,I did not say that Juniors is bad for hockey.

All I said is that there is at least one negative involved in its operation and existence in that it takes talent away from HS hockey.

In my opinion,anyone who doesnt acknowledge that negative has their head in the sand.

The fact that Juniors may be a positive for some individuals doesn't change that. The fact that it hasnt destroyed HS hockey doesnt change that. The fact that things arent going to change, doesnt change that.

Nothing you nor anyone else has posted changes that fact.