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

[Can't Never Tried]

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.

We all love Fred !

I think Jr's provides a good venue for the player that wants to finish their HS years then move on to play JR hockey before going to college.
But for the HS player it's a personal choice, and one that first requires a good deal of talent and desire before they even have that option of leaving HS.
I also don't think it's a big deal.

[gomnhky]

The landscape of high school hockey and hockey in general is constantly evolving and changing. And while the changes can be difficult for those of us who take pride in the tradition of MN HS hockey, I think we would be neglect in thinking that players and families should not pursue certain opportunities that are offered and that make good sense in the long run for the player's continued development. A player that is fortunate to play in the USHL is not only afforded the opportunity to play a significantly larger number of games at a much higher and consistent level of competition, it also provides a player the opportunity to personally develop and mature in a safe and controlled environment. While this might not be the ideal situation for everyone, it is certainly a valid option for certain players depending on their personal hockey situations and goals. We should not take offense with those who opt to leave, but rather wish them well, and take pride in the fact that MN is being represented in all the different phases of the hockey development landscape. It is, what it is!

[Blue&Gold]

The landscape of high school hockey and hockey in general is constantly evolving and changing. And while the changes can be difficult for those of us who take pride in the tradition of MN HS hockey, I think we would be neglect in thinking that players and families should not pursue certain opportunities that are offered and that make good sense in the long run for the player's continued development. A player that is fortunate to play in the USHL is not only afforded the opportunity to play a significantly larger number of games at a much higher and consistent level of competition, it also provides a player the opportunity to personally develop and mature in a safe and controlled environment. While this might not be the ideal situation for everyone, it is certainly a valid option for certain players depending on their personal hockey situations and goals. We should not take offense with those who opt to leave, but rather wish them well, and take pride in the fact that MN is being represented in all the different phases of the hockey development landscape. It is, what it is!

I am humbled as you pretty much have said what I've been trying to say in many discombobulated posts. Thank you!!

[Idiot]

How about the positive of Junior Hockey and its effect on the high school players..

Fred goes to play juniors and improves as a player, Frank gets his chance to play high school varsity and continue to improve as a player because Fred opened a spot for him or he would have been watching from the stands never to play again.

When a player leaves there is always someone else ready to take is place and continue to help that beloved high school hockey thrive.

[packerboy]

What's "good" for Fred may be "bad" for HS Hockey. Its both, not one or the other.

The "opens a spot for someone else" rational limps. How can it be good for the competitive level of any league to lose its top players and replace them with guys like Frank who would have been cut?

Remember, I have said for years that we should trash High School Hockey and have kids play on community teams just like they do all the way thru Bantans. But we cling to our school affiliation in hockey. Which puts us under the MSHSL rules instead of MN/USA Hockey.

But either way, losing good players is a negative.

[O-townClown]

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.

Packer, interesting that you accuse me of being closed-minded. Pot, meet kettle.

I've listened plenty. No sense in arguing this. You know how you feel. However, if it is negative that Junior hockey takes talent away from Minnesota HS hockey, then you certainly must feel it is a negative that NBA early-entrants are a problem for NCAA basketball. It is almost an identical parallel.

I acknowledge that Juniors does take talent away from Minnesota HS hockey. I just don't see the negative. If it were most of the top players that would be one thing. It isn't. Just a few. As it is today Minnesota will continue to turn out NHL draft picks and many of those will come from the HS ranks. Last year it was Ness and Gardiner. This year Budish and others. The year before it was White.

You think it is a big negative. I don't. Idiot doesn't. Doesn't seem that B&G or Blog think it is.

Back to the topic. The NCAA and its member institutions will not create Junior Varsity hockey and USA Hockey will not 'get rid of' Juniors. Even though riverskater thinks they should.

[O-townClown]

BTW Packer, I talked with a couple kids I know last night. Both completed HS and are leaving for a season with the Northern Cyclones Jr. A team in New Hampshire outside of Boston.

One is hockey age 19 (could play two years of Juniors) and the other is hockey age 18 (could play three). Both want to play in college and hope to play Jr only as long as they need to.

I think they are the face of Jr more than Seth Ambroz, who recently led the Select 15 in scoring.

How's the saying go? Know thy enemy. Or I've met the enemy and it is us. Minnesota recognized they could offer more for advanced players past puberty, looked at what other areas were doing, and adapted. Piggybacking HS Elite League on top of Varsity hockey is working nicely. Not for everybody, but for most of those in question.

[riverskater]

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.

Packer, interesting that you accuse me of being closed-minded. Pot, meet kettle.

I've listened plenty. No sense in arguing this. You know how you feel. However, if it is negative that Junior hockey takes talent away from Minnesota HS hockey, then you certainly must feel it is a negative that NBA early-entrants are a problem for NCAA basketball. It is almost an identical parallel.

I acknowledge that Juniors does take talent away from Minnesota HS hockey. I just don't see the negative. If it were most of the top players that would be one thing. It isn't. Just a few. As it is today Minnesota will continue to turn out NHL draft picks and many of those will come from the HS ranks. Last year it was Ness and Gardiner. This year Budish and others. The year before it was White.

You think it is a big negative. I don't. Idiot doesn't. Doesn't seem that B&G or Blog think it is.

Back to the topic. The NCAA and its member institutions will not create Junior Varsity hockey and USA Hockey will not 'get rid of' Juniors. Even though riverskater thinks they should.

Maybe the reason that packerboy doesnt think you listen is because you seem to think you know what others think. To clarify, I do not think we should get rid of Juniors until there is something in place that would make the hockey develpment and/or NCAA stronger. I would be interested in your response to my questions in a post on page 2.

[O-townClown]

Maybe the reason that packerboy doesnt think you listen is because you seem to think you know what others think. To clarify, I do not think we should get rid of Juniors until there is something in place that would make the hockey develpment and/or NCAA stronger. I would be interested in your response to my questions in a post on page 2.

I'm sorry. I guess when you posted that we should get rid of Juniors and that NCAA members should scholarship players when they enter for a redshirt year I thought you meant we should get rid of Juniors and that NCAA members should scholarship players when they enter for a redshirt year. I can only go by what you post.

Now you don't think we should get rid of Juniors (yet) and you seem to be concerned about the strength of NCAA hockey. Okay then.

College hockey is about as strong as it can be, thanks to Juniors. They want older players and they get them. To make it even stronger I supposed you could let kids from the WHL, OHL, and QMJHL play...but it might not matter yet because their top-end players probably wouldn't come. Also, you could expand to more games. Kids play 60-70 as Juniors and drop to just 40 in college. Pee Wees play more. I'll go back and look at your questions.

[O-townClown]

Options for kids is a good thing.

1. 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.

2. 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?

3. 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.

4. Any ideas on how a NCAA JV system could work?

5. 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?

Is this the post?

1 - Great. Figure out a way to do it. I don't think anyone responded because it is not possible. I can dream all I want about how the world would be a better place if Cindy Crawford slept with me, it doesn't matter because it's not happening. (darn)

2 - No idea what you are talking about. Is the NCAA giving out scholarships, or NCAA member institutions like St. Cloud, Mankato, or Clarkson? I'd have to know something about this to have an opinion.

3 - I'm not sure what the question is there. You bounce around a bit. What is the purpose of playing Juniors? I guess I can counter and ask what is the purpose of playing Squirts. Kids play because they like to play hockey. In order to play at a high level in college it is necessary for most everyone to keep playing past HS age. So?

4 - It couldn't, unless you essentially offer JV level hockey that resembles club. ACHA hockey has changed greatly in the past 20 years. While it isn't NCAA, it is organized and can be very competitive. Why on earth would the NCAA move to implement JV hockey when they have gotten away from JV in every sport? I think. I have no idea.

5 - It obviously depends. Recruited to play college hockey in the WCHA and being recruited to play college FB at a TV school? (Think Zach Budish.) Or being recruited to play college hockey in the CCHA while being asked to join the golf team at Clemson as a non-scholarship player? Non-revenue sports have very few scholarships to give out. Or being recruited to play for Bemidji while being offered a partial D2 soccer scholly? Who can give a blanket answer when there are so many variables?

Chances are the D-1 school in question wants your son to play USHL first. My advice to ANYONE playing hockey with aspirations to play at the Division I level is the same - you must be prepared to DO the things necessary to make it. Ben Grotting plays at Madison. He left Birmingham and attended Shattuck from 9th through 12th grade, never making the Prep team. He played a year of Junior hockey in Texas followed by a year in the USHL. Finally, six years removed from his home and two years past HS, he became a D1 college player. Most kids aren't willing to do as much and most kids will fall short of the D1 goal as a result.

[riverskater]

Options for kids is a good thing.

1. 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.

2. 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?

3. 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.

4. Any ideas on how a NCAA JV system could work?

5. 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?

Is this the post?

1 - Great. Figure out a way to do it. I don't think anyone responded because it is not possible. I can dream all I want about how the world would be a better place if Cindy Crawford slept with me, it doesn't matter because it's not happening. (darn)

2 - No idea what you are talking about. Is the NCAA giving out scholarships, or NCAA member institutions like St. Cloud, Mankato, or Clarkson? I'd have to know something about this to have an opinion.

3 - I'm not sure what the question is there. You bounce around a bit. What is the purpose of playing Juniors? I guess I can counter and ask what is the purpose of playing Squirts. Kids play because they like to play hockey. In order to play at a high level in college it is necessary for most everyone to keep playing past HS age. So?

4 - It couldn't, unless you essentially offer JV level hockey that resembles club. ACHA hockey has changed greatly in the past 20 years. While it isn't NCAA, it is organized and can be very competitive. Why on earth would the NCAA move to implement JV hockey when they have gotten away from JV in every sport? I think. I have no idea.

5 - It obviously depends. Recruited to play college hockey in the WCHA and being recruited to play college FB at a TV school? (Think Zach Budish.) Or being recruited to play college hockey in the CCHA while being asked to join the golf team at Clemson as a non-scholarship player? Non-revenue sports have very few scholarships to give out. Or being recruited to play for Bemidji while being offered a partial D2 soccer scholly? Who can give a blanket answer when there are so many variables?

Chances are the D-1 school in question wants your son to play USHL first. My advice to ANYONE playing hockey with aspirations to play at the Division I level is the same - you must be prepared to DO the things necessary to make it. Ben Grotting plays at Madison. He left Birmingham and attended Shattuck from 9th through 12th grade, never making the Prep team. He played a year of Junior hockey in Texas followed by a year in the USHL. Finally, six years removed from his home and two years past HS, he became a D1 college player. Most kids aren't willing to do as much and most kids will fall short of the D1 goal as a result.

O-town, Thank you for your response. No question that this is a dream. It's a dream because we have to ask "Why are we not there yet?" If the answer is out of our control it is a dream...but if we do have control over the variables it can be a goal.
Someone a lot smarter than me once said, "The enemy of the best is good". Does anyone out there think we could or should have a better system? What would it look like in your dream?

[O-townClown]

Does anyone out there think we could or should have a better system? What would it look like in your dream?

River:

What are you trying to change? A better system? For who?

I guess I'd start by looking at whose needs aren't being met and figure out what needs to be done to address those needs. Then evaluate whether addressing those needs is feasible.

I'm not seeing the same problems you must. What's the big rub here? Less than 1% of Minnesota's HS age players choose the USHL? Kids play in the USHL after HS before they make it to college?

Hockey is a competitive sport. The solution isn't to make it less competitive.

Oddly, Minnesota's participants seem to have things inverted. If the state can do a better job of 'developing' players it is at the post-puberty ages. Most people seem to advocate keeping HS intact, but many are accelerating the pre-puberty training.

[goldy313]

1-Title IX makes any additional spots for male athletes nearly impossible, money wouldn't be an obstacle at most places if it wasn't for Title IX.

3- Making and losing money isn't the importnat part in hockey, if you make money great but if you lose money you can write off the losses. Most teams are LLC's (Limited Liability Companies) which greatly protects the owners other assetts in case of losing money. The owners are protected from the "acts and debts" of the LLC. So you can lose a ton of money, owe the city tons in ice rental and fold with almost no recourse. If the city(bus company, advertisers, etc.) was able to hold the NAHL (for example) liable for expenses when the team folds the landscape would be dramitically different but they can't so if you can put together enough money to buy in you can pretty much get yourself a junior team.

4-It can't unless a JV womens program came into being with it.

5-Pick the sport that's the most fun, college sports are a lot of work. My day started at 7am and finished at 10 pm for football, and I had to take mostly night classes due to meetings, training room availability, practice, etc. in order to graduate in 4 years. Many of the kids I played with never made it to senior level courses in 5 years. You'd take the bare mininmum of 12 credits during the fall and then have to kill yourself in the spring to catch up - you needed to average 16 credits a semester to graduate on time. The acedemic washout rate is pretty high, even at Minnesota it seems that they lose a couple of hockey player each year due to grades and poor progress. If you're not having that much fun in the sport your grades will suffer and there's nothing worse than blowing a scholarship due to poor grades. I guess in my opinion it's better to play football at Central Michigan than hockey at Minnesota if you like football better, better to play hockey at RPI than football at Ohio State if you like hockey better.

[Gopher Blog]

even at Minnesota it seems that they lose a couple of hockey player each year due to grades and poor progress.

The last academic casualty (i.e. had to leave the program) on the hockey team was Dan Welch and that was 2003. Not exactly a common occurrence. Carman had his issues last year but did fine in working through it. I am not sure where you get the idea that there are common issues academically when they haven't had to suspend guys very often and it is has been five years since a guy had to be removed from the team because of academics.

As for JV commentary, I think it is pretty clear that will never happen again. As has been stated, the costs would simply make it impossible to fund for most schools.

Red shirting is unlikely to be a common practice either given a decent portion of kids get drafted their first year out of HS and they are not going to damage their draft status by sitting out a season of hockey. Even if they are drafted the summer they graduate HS, they aren't going to want to damage their progress in the eyes of the team that holds their pro rights by sitting out a year of competition. Pro teams are going to be very unhappy with the idea that a kid is sitting out a year of valuable competition time. Like it or not, the pro team will ultimately call the shots with their prospects. Extremely far fetched to think red shirts would ever become common a la football.

[goldy313]

GB, What about the kids who leave school? Not everyone leaves to go pro, not everyone leaves because of bad grades or poor acedemic progress either. You have your head in the sand if you think grades/acedemic performance aren't a major factor in why kids leave early. Some know they're going pro and don't care but the 6 year graduation rate for hockey players was 43% in 2007, last of the 5 Big Ten schools who play hockey. 84% is the national average for D1 hockey, Minnesota is about half that and in the lowest 20th percentile.

[riverskater]

Does anyone out there think we could or should have a better system? What would it look like in your dream?

River:

What are you trying to change? A better system? For who?

I guess I'd start by looking at whose needs aren't being met and figure out what needs to be done to address those needs. Then evaluate whether addressing those needs is feasible.

I'm not seeing the same problems you must. What's the big rub here? Less than 1% of Minnesota's HS age players choose the USHL? Kids play in the USHL after HS before they make it to college?

Hockey is a competitive sport. The solution isn't to make it less competitive.

Oddly, Minnesota's participants seem to have things inverted. If the state can do a better job of 'developing' players it is at the post-puberty ages. Most people seem to advocate keeping HS intact, but many are accelerating the pre-puberty training.

O-Town- Good post. Bottom line, I am comparing development , recruiting and scholarships in football and hockey. I am coming to the conclussion that it's not a fair comparison, I wish it could be. I would like to see steps that could get hockey closer to football.
I think it would be good for kids that have the measurables to play hockey at high level, but can't afford it. It would help hockey because there would be a broader base from which to draw support.

[riverskater]

1-Title IX makes any additional spots for male athletes nearly impossible, money wouldn't be an obstacle at most places if it wasn't for Title IX.

3- Making and losing money isn't the importnat part in hockey, if you make money great but if you lose money you can write off the losses. Most teams are LLC's (Limited Liability Companies) which greatly protects the owners other assetts in case of losing money. The owners are protected from the "acts and debts" of the LLC. So you can lose a ton of money, owe the city tons in ice rental and fold with almost no recourse. If the city(bus company, advertisers, etc.) was able to hold the NAHL (for example) liable for expenses when the team folds the landscape would be dramitically different but they can't so if you can put together enough money to buy in you can pretty much get yourself a junior team.

4-It can't unless a JV womens program came into being with it.

5-Pick the sport that's the most fun, college sports are a lot of work. My day started at 7am and finished at 10 pm for football, and I had to take mostly night classes due to meetings, training room availability, practice, etc. in order to graduate in 4 years. Many of the kids I played with never made it to senior level courses in 5 years. You'd take the bare mininmum of 12 credits during the fall and then have to kill yourself in the spring to catch up - you needed to average 16 credits a semester to graduate on time. The acedemic washout rate is pretty high, even at Minnesota it seems that they lose a couple of hockey player each year due to grades and poor progress. If you're not having that much fun in the sport your grades will suffer and there's nothing worse than blowing a scholarship due to poor grades. I guess in my opinion it's better to play football at Central Michigan than hockey at Minnesota if you like football better, better to play hockey at RPI than football at Ohio State if you like hockey better.

It sounds like you have some experience in both. Why did you chose football? There would be a huge benifit for kids being able to have five years to finish school. I see what you mean about Title IX. I don't have an answer for that.

[O-townClown]

O-Town- Good post. Bottom line, I am comparing development , recruiting and scholarships in football and hockey. I am coming to the conclussion that it's not a fair comparison, I wish it could be. I would like to see steps that could get hockey closer to football.
I think it would be good for kids that have the measurables to play hockey at high level, but can't afford it. It would help hockey because there would be a broader base from which to draw support.

Football? Why football? You could pick baseball - where college coaches don't have any clue who will come because so many sign pro contracts - or basketball.

"Steps that could get hockey closer to football." Like what? 300+ pound space eaters that have no skills that would translate to other positions? "Optional" summer workouts and team mat drills that sometimes leads to death? Notre Dame on NBC every freakin' weekend? Knock yourself out.

The simple fact is that kids that can't afford hockey don't play in 99% of the country. It is, and will remain, an expensive sport.

Football is a pretty bad sport. Not fun to practice. Injuries that last a lifetime for most anyone that plays at a high level. Tremendous emphasis on size and speed over skill.

Hockey isn't perfect, but thank God it isn't football.

[O-townClown]

Oh, and River, it would help me if I understood what you are trying to develop these players for. Colleges regularly play kids 6 years past HS age and you seem to imply that 5 years out is more 'development'. Not sure what you mean.

[10ouncepuck]

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.

The Minnesota Hockey Journal article "Overshadowed?" (Feb. 0-eight) suggested 3 factors as to reasons why some players leave early from high school, juniors, college to pro.

1) The growth of USA Hockey and the introduction of the NTDP.

2) An NHL entry draft rule change that allows players to be drafted at age 18.

3) The new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the NHL and the NHLPA.


As someone pointed out, the landscape has changed and things are constantly evolving.

Here is an excerpt from that article.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

While Minnesota colleges are seeing the impact of the early departures, they are not the only ones feeling the pain.

“It’s a trickle-down effect, there’s no question,” said Coach Sandelin. “If we lose players early, then we have to go and take players earlier out of Juniors and then the Juniors have to get more players for their rosters out of high school. It’s kind of where we’re at right now.”

Lucia echoed the same sentiment: “The pros take from college, college takes from the USHL, and the USHL takes from high school.”

For now it seems that Minnesota’s top players will continue to leave home early to play in the USHL or for the U.S. National Development Team and will continue to be drafted in the higher rounds of the NHL Entry Draft, and those players are likely to leave college with at least some eligibility remaining. And if the trend continues, the number of those players will continue to increase.

Sandelin agrees. “The best line I ever heard was that some kids don’t enjoy the journey; they’re worried about the destination. To me that’s what it’s all about when you’re playing hockey, or anything. You’ve got to enjoy the journey, and the destination will be there whenever. But everyone seems to want to get to the destination without enjoying the journey.”

http://www.minnesotahockeyjournal.com/f ... llege.html
http://www.minnesotahockeyjournal.com/features.html

[packerboy]

Its a good article but it only describes a very recent trend.

The Gophers won 5 years ago with players who stayed and played with them for 3 years for the most part. We didnt see the "one and gone" stuff we have seen the last couple of years.

What I dont get is why the colleges dont adjust and quit sending their top recruits to Juniors for a year. I think the result is, in a lot of situations, that the player is in Juniors for one year, college for one year and then gone instead of college for 2 or 3.

But the article points out the fact that right now we are basically peeing all over each other and ourselves.

It may be result of being too concerned about Fred from Rogers,( who heretofore shall be known as Fred Rogers) and not the organizations which made him great.

Wontcha be my neighbor

[O-townClown]

What I dont get is why the colleges dont adjust and quit sending their top recruits to Juniors for a year. I think the result is, in a lot of situations, that the player is in Juniors for one year, college for one year and then gone instead of college for 2 or 3.

Gee, you don't suppose it is because of who wins at the college level, do ya'?

1978 Boston U. 30-2
1979 Minnesota 32-11-1
1980 North Dakota 31-8-1
1981 Wisconsin 27-14-1
1982 North Dakota 35-12
1983 Wisconsin 33-10-4
1984 Bowling Green 34-8-2
1985 Rensselaer 35-2-1
1986 Michigan St. 34-9-2
1987 North Dakota 40-8
1988 Lake Superior St. 33-7-6
1989 Harvard 31-3
1990 Wisconsin 36-9-1
1991 Northern Mich. 38-5-4
1992 Lake Superior St. 30-9-4
1993 Maine 42-1-2
1994 Lake Superior St. 31-10-4
1995 Boston U. 31-6-3
1996 Michigan 33-7-2
1997 North Dakota 31-10-2
1998 Michigan 32-11-1
1999 Maine 31-6-4
2000 North Dakota 31-8-5
2001 Boston College 33-8-2
2002 Minnesota 32-8-4
2003 Minnesota 30-8-9
2004 Denver 27-12-5
2005 Denver 32-9-2
2006 Wisconsin 30-10-3
2007 Michigan State 26-13-3
2008 Boston College 25-11-8

Some of these teams rely on 20-year-olds out of Canadian Junior hockey. The Gophers didn't win from 1979 to 2002 despite some great teams. Usually they'd run into someone just a little bit better and oftentimes these teams were older.

There's such a moving target with what you and River find unsettling. He just brought up the cost of hockey and now you are on to college players that leave for the pros. Before it was Minnesota HS players that leave for Juniors. What, do you want to be the one that tells every kid where they have to play?

An overwhelming majority of NCAA players don't leave early for professional hockey. Just like an overwhelming majority of Minnesota's HS players don't leave early for Junior. Of course, when they do it is obviously just the best ones. Is that what bothers you?

The NCAA could allow more games, which would turn D1 hockey into a de facto minor league. A lot of people don't think it is a good thing that NCAA basketball is the minor league for the NBA. I'm pretty sure the NCAA will leave the AHL to be the NHL's minor league and is content to offer competitive hockey to kids that want to get a degree while playing.

Colleges send kids to Juniors for a year because they wind up with better players. It isn't any more complicated than that.

[Gopher Blog]

GB, What about the kids who leave school? Not everyone leaves to go pro, not everyone leaves because of bad grades or poor acedemic progress either. You have your head in the sand if you think grades/acedemic performance aren't a major factor in why kids leave early. Some know they're going pro and don't care but the 6 year graduation rate for hockey players was 43% in 2007, last of the 5 Big Ten schools who play hockey. 84% is the national average for D1 hockey, Minnesota is about half that and in the lowest 20th percentile.

If you think it is so common, give examples. You make a generalization without backing it up with enough examples to prove it. If you can't start giving numerous examples, then it is nothing more than hyperbole.

Stats such as those you pose are nice but the reality is most of these guys who sign pro deals (especially sizeable pro deals) aren't rushing back to finish their degree in the subsequent few years. Especially considering the length of the pro hockey season. Considering the Gophers have had a healthy percentage of early departures to the pro game in recent years (when compared to the Colorado College types), I am not too concerned about where they stack up in comparison. When a team recruits a large percentage of high profile players with solid to strong pro futures, it is pretty obvious the graduation rate isn't going to be as good as schools that don't recruit nearly as many of those level of players. Not because these departures are poor academically... but mainly because the need to go back soon after isn't really there.

Their APR (academic progress rate) is pretty good (950 last I checked) despite all these departures, etc. I can guarantee you their APR would be a major issue if your comments were reality.

Even the ones who knew they were going to leave early (a la EJ) left in good standing. None of them backed themselves into a corner academically which would basically force their hand to leave early.

[Can't Never Tried]

Clown you are an informative poster, but I would think even you could see that PB's got you chasing your tail on an endless argument, it won't matter how many counterpoints you have, he'll propose another angle and you seek to disprove it.
It's called bait!
However it does provide the rest of us with an entertaining read so carry on!

[packerboy]

Its a beautiful day in the neighborhood, a beautiful day in the neighbor hood........

Fred Rogers can play anyhwere he wants. I am not telling him where to play nor would I care to........ Besides, he's dead. I think that the organizations should show some control and try to respect the structure of one anothers programs.

These discussion are always so apples and oranges because somebody will say" It hurts the program" and the response is always" yah, but look how it helps the kid".

Taste great. Less filling.

I am a program guy. I think if we keep HS hockey strong it helps everybody, even Fred who doesnt think he gets much out of it. Is it the ideal situation for him? Maybe not but he will be fine if he stays with it and if he is good enough.

BTW, people who diss the current HS hockey experience crack me up.

From Doug Woog to Phil Housley to CDH's Ryan McDonaugh, high school hockey has propelled kids to great heights.

O-clown, the 20 year olds from BC last year were all Jrs and Srs. They get older after 2-3 years in college.

BTW, you keep bringing up the NBA and college basketball. They passed a one year/19 year old rule and the word was that they wanted it to be 2 years. Why do you suppose they did that?

When Okposo left for NY last winter did you say"oh, it doesnt matter, not everybody does"? I assure you Gopher Blog's best buddy and hero didnt.

That's what I mean when I say we are stepping all over each other. My opinion is hardly singular. It seems Blog's pal Lucia is of a like mind.