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

[O-townClown]

1. I think that the organizations should show some control and try to respect the structure of one anothers programs.

2. 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".

3. 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.

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

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

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

7. 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?

8. 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.

9. 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.

1. Let us know how that works out. If you really expect the WCHA teams to leave USHL players alone until they age out of Juniors you should share what you're smoking.

2. I'm not sure who you've had discussions with in the past so I won't comment on that. However, I'm wondering how you can on one hand say you are alright with letting players make their own decisions and on the other say different levels of hockey should collude in order to limit that player's options.

3. Makes sense until you consider the feelings of kids that don't think the system is right for them. Seriously, you want to regulate how others feel. If the goalie from Roseau or International Falls wants to see more shots you can't say they'll be fine if they just stick with the program. They don't feel that way and they get to make their decision. And live with its consequences.

4. Great. No idea how to respond. I don't know people that diss the current HS hockey experience.

5. Has anyone ever said differently? I don't know how Doug Woog is relevant today. He coached a HS in the 70s and early 80s and moved to the WCHA. 25 years ago. Phil Housley played HS hockey almost 30 years ago. No way to know for sure, but it is possible he too would have played USHL in place of his jr. year of HS. He did play 16 games with the St. Paul Vulcans as it was, and I do remember seeing his older brother Larry in their locker room as well.

6. BC has lots of players from the USHL. Six players on this year's roster came from USHL teams and three more came from other Junior teams. I've never said colleges can't take kids that are 18. I've only said that when teams that do that - like the Gophers did through the 80s and most of the 90s - and then lose to teams that don't (Lake Superior State won three national championships) it isn't hard to see why coaches take older players. The WCHA has more kids from Minnesota that played a year after HS in the USHL than it has coming at age 18. And when kids do come at 18 they are probably the ones that left traditional MN HS hockey to play in the U.

7. The NBA moved draft age up from age 18 to 19 because their teams were often committing money and roster spots to players that were unproven. In Minnesota it was late 1st Round pick Ndi Ebi. To protect their teams they put a rule in place that encourages the very best players to play at least one season of NCAA basketball. The NCAA functions as the de facto minor league for the NBA. We can talk the NBA Draft all you want. There isn't much I don't know about it. This hardly seems like the forum. Not sure how to draw a parallel here to hockey, but the reason NBA teams prefer 19 year olds versus 18 year olds is pretty much the same as why WCHA coaches do.

8. I didn't say anything. I don't really care. It was interesting to hear the comments from some friends and how they differed from the one NHL scout I know. Did it bother you that Garth Snow doesn't care one bit whether the Gophers win or lose?

9. Lucia's of a like mind? Okay. Do you mean the same Lucia that had his son play USHL instead of in HS and regularly offers scholarships to players from that league? Seems like he advocates all the things you've posted against in this thread.(*EDIT - his son may have played as a sr but after the HS season...can't recall *)

Others have noted that your argument, if you can call it that, seems to move around. What I've learned is that when your son has the option to stay and play for his HS or join a USHL team you are going to want him to stay home. And that's fine.

[Blue&Gold]

Tony Lucia played his senior year of high school in Omaha for the USHL Lancers.

It's a choice, no doubt about it. I do have some personal experience with all of this, so perhaps my feelings are showing...

[goldy313]

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.

You want statistics? Well you know the NCAA doesn't release indivudual student athletes GPA's so that's tough to compare but I'll give you this.....

In the past 8 seasons the Gophers have had 26 kids leave before their senior season for a variety of reasons (From USCHO) Using a hockey stats database for the NHL, AHL, ECHL, NCAA, USNTDP and USHL I found 5 of the 26 are primarily NHL players; Vanek, Kessel, Ballard, P. Martin, and Johnson. 7 more are primarily AHL players; Taylor, Taffe, Okposo, Irmen, Poltulny, Goligoksi, and Chucko. 3 are ECHL players; Welch, J. Martin, and Erickson. 9 are out of pro hockey all together; Hagemo, O'Brien, Leepart, Smargia, Tharp, Young, Hrisca, Weber, and Meyer, 1 is a transfer student at St. Cloud - Borgen.

From the AHL president Dave Andrews, the average salary of a non 2 way contract in the AHL is $55k, that's not rookies, that's everyone and that includes signing bonuses prorated to the length of the contract. From the ECHL website players rookie salary is $350/$395 per week, that's less than $10 an hour. If an NHL/AHL team sends a player there they can pay the player an additional $525/week so long as the team weekly salary cap stays within the set limit of $11,500. From the US Dept. of Labor, the average college graduate's starting salary in 2006 was $46,000.

Also an APR of 950 is above the NCAA penalty limit of 925 but still in the lowest quintile of all D1 mens hockey programs, good huh?. The GSR is the more appropiate use though as it shoots your "in good standing" theory to pieces. From the NCAA " ....this will not penalize an institution as long as the outgoing athlete would have been acedemically eligible had they returned." So in that usage if an athlete leaves to turn pro he would not hurt the GSR had he been acedemically eligible to return. Of course you do have to take into consideration that if a kid leaves in the middle of the term he will likely fail all his current classes thereby hurting his cumulitive GPA. By contrast an APR of 1.000 should be fairly easy to maintain as each athlete only has to be academically eligible and enrolled in school for each term he is involved in a sport. Again an APR of .925 shows that there is more than Danny Welch around, you just can't hear about it. Hockey is not as of yet subject to NCAA penalties for low APR's, only football, baseball, and Basketball are.

[Neutron 14]

Goldy does it again. Props.

[goldy313]

One thing I'd really like to see is an APR and GSR for 20-21 year old freshmen vs. the APR and GSR for 18 year old freshmen. USA Hockey probably wouldn't want anything like that done and I am sure most D1 coaches in the WCHA and CCHA wouldn't either as the results wouldn't be pretty. My hunch would be that easiest way to bring your GSR and APR up is to recruit 18 year olds as Hockey East and the ECAC along with Coloradop College which rely on "true" freshmen have considerably higher rates than those who rely on junior players.

[riverskater]

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.

Developing players for college .

[O-townClown]

Developing players for college .

Junior Hockey does a WAY better job of developing players for college than anything else. Hockey-wise. I don't know about academically. The USHL's propaganda says that kids actually benefit. Hard to believe.

Compared to the University of Minnesota's old Varsity Reserves (JV) there's no contest. You really think younger players neglected under the oversight of a Division I program can compare to playing 2 games weekly in front of thousands (in the case of the USHL) in a very competitive league.

You whole reasoning here is off kilter. College hockey has never been stronger and that's due in part to juniors.

I think you'll have an easier time embracing today's hockey landscape when you understand more about it. You don't have to like it, but at least you'll see there aren't many whose needs are unmet.

[Gopher Blog]

In the past 8 seasons the Gophers have had 26 kids leave before their senior season for a variety of reasons (From USCHO) Using a hockey stats database for the NHL, AHL, ECHL, NCAA, USNTDP and USHL I found 5 of the 26 are primarily NHL players; Vanek, Kessel, Ballard, P. Martin, and Johnson. 7 more are primarily AHL players; Taylor, Taffe, Okposo, Irmen, Poltulny, Goligoksi, and Chucko. 3 are ECHL players; Welch, J. Martin, and Erickson. 9 are out of pro hockey all together; Hagemo, O'Brien, Leepart, Smargia, Tharp, Young, Hrisca, Weber, and Meyer, 1 is a transfer student at St. Cloud - Borgen.

Even with the specific names thrown out, most of them were anything but academic problems.

For instance, of the nine guys mentioned as being out of hockey, the closest that any of them were to being an academic issue was Meyer. I don’t recall if he managed to graduate after he transferred to SCSU.

Some of those names left strictly for playing time reasons (i.e. Tharp, Samargia, O’Brien, Borgen, etc.) and could have continued on had they chosen to.

Weber? The kid had a family member have a serious health issue that obviously affected his desire to play. They expected him back and were upset he didn’t return. Not exactly academics there.

Or Hirsch (I’ll assume “Hrisca” is Hirsch) and Hagemo? Are you seriously trying to sell the idea that those were academic departures? If so, you must not have much of a connection (nor follow the program) with any kind of depth.

Using a name like Leepart is a complete insult to the discussion and has no merit. He never even played at the U and was a walk on attempt that simply didn’t last.

(BTW, Joey Martin graduated)

The situations that concern me are the ones like Welch. That was truly an academic departure.

The 950 APR mark wasn’t my attempt to inflate the academics. What it was meant to do was to show there is no way in heck they would be where they are in the APR if they had near the level of issues you were stating. I wasn’t using it as a standard of excellence. Although the Gophers are pretty much right in line in regard to APR with the two major rivals they have in UND and UW. Those are the two programs most closely related to the Gophers that face many of the same challenges in regard to who they recruit, pro futures, etc.

I recognize there are better scores and better academic records at some other programs. Although most of those schools also don’t recruit nearly as many high level guys that tend to depart early.

[riverskater]

Developing players for college .

Junior Hockey does a WAY better job of developing players for college than anything else. Hockey-wise. I don't know about academically. The USHL's propaganda says that kids actually benefit. Hard to believe.

Compared to the University of Minnesota's old Varsity Reserves (JV) there's no contest. You really think younger players neglected under the oversight of a Division I program can compare to playing 2 games weekly in front of thousands (in the case of the USHL) in a very competitive league.

You whole reasoning here is off kilter. College hockey has never been stronger and that's due in part to juniors.

I think you'll have an easier time embracing today's hockey landscape when you understand more about it. You don't have to like it, but at least you'll see there aren't many whose needs are unmet.

When I say development I mean for life...for those in a sport that includes improvement in that sport and exposure because the sport of choice can help provide an education.

I disagree that hockey (note the absence of the word juniors) does a better job of development than other sports. You are correct, college hockey (skill wise) is stronger and it is due largely to juniors. This is mostly due to the age of hockey players entering college.

Compare hockey and football, In one, the athlete enters the program ready to play but new to the school, new to the program and has to fit in four years of schooling on top of the rigors of the sport. The other has a year paid for while he/she learns that schools program, gets used to that level of play and can enter into the academic rigors knowing they can spread thier course load to fit into five years.

Let's back up to high school. Here again I prefer what football does vs hockey. Consider this:
As a hockey player or parent you know how much it cost to do camps, AAA hockey, exposure camps, elite programs, advanced tryouts, ...you make it you pay more to continue.
In football, You can find camps that cost $$, specific schools camps cost, per NCAA rules. But most elite camps and combines are not only free, you usually get free stuff too. There are web sites that compete for getting information about specific student/athletes out.

I admit this is not a fair comparison because: Hockey doesnt have the $$...and it requires more skill development ie. ice time. but to say that hockey does a better job of development is wrong IMO.

[O-townClown]

When I say development I mean for life...for those in a sport that includes improvement in that sport and exposure because the sport of choice can help provide an education.

I disagree that hockey (note the absence of the word juniors) does a better job of development than other sports. You are correct, college hockey (skill wise) is stronger and it is due largely to juniors. This is mostly due to the age of hockey players entering college.

Compare hockey and football, In one, the athlete enters the program ready to play but new to the school, new to the program and has to fit in four years of schooling on top of the rigors of the sport. The other has a year paid for while he/she learns that schools program, gets used to that level of play and can enter into the academic rigors knowing they can spread thier course load to fit into five years.

Let's back up to high school. Here again I prefer what football does vs hockey. Consider this:
As a hockey player or parent you know how much it cost to do camps, AAA hockey, exposure camps, elite programs, advanced tryouts, ...you make it you pay more to continue.
In football, You can find camps that cost $$, specific schools camps cost, per NCAA rules. But most elite camps and combines are not only free, you usually get free stuff too. There are web sites that compete for getting information about specific student/athletes out.

I admit this is not a fair comparison because: Hockey doesnt have the $$...and it requires more skill development ie. ice time. but to say that hockey does a better job of development is wrong IMO.

It is hard to know where to start. Do you have any idea about college athletics? Here are some numbers for you:

The NCAA allows each division IA college football program 85 scholarships and each division IAA college 63 athletic scholarships. In division 2 there are 36 Scholarships.

A college football team has 11 starters on offense, 11 on defense, and uses subs and special teams players to get up to a "core" of - for the sake of discussion - 55 to 60 players. (NFL teams dress far less.) D1 football teams don't have redshirted players because of a desire to better prepare them for adulthood, they have them because they don't have anywhere else to put them. I'm guessing you will find redshirting less common at D2 schools.

There are 117 division 1A,124 division 1AA and 150 division 2 colleges that offer football scholarships. That's a total of 23,157 football scholarships available in the NCAA alone.

Let's compare those numbers to hockey.

Currently the NCAA sponsors 59 Men’s Division I and 7 Division II ice hockey programs as well as 34 Women’s Division I and 2 Division II ice hockey programs. The NCAA divisions 1 and 2 are sanctioned to offer ice hockey scholarships. But each division has scholarship limits:

NCAA ice hockey scholarship limits:

Men’s D1 ice hockey programs may each offer 18 scholarships.
Women’s D1 and D2 ice hockey programs are permitted 18 each.
Men’s D2 ice hockey programs are limited to 13.5 per program.

The MAX would be about 1,200 athletic scholarships. Many programs don't give hockey scholarships (Ivies and academies of course) and several other are on self-imposed limits short of 18.

Go work with the NCAA to raise the number from 18 to 30 and then figure out how member institutions can fund those and I'm sure you'll find WCHA and CCHA coaches that are more than happy to scholarship kids, park them in the classroom for a redshirt year, and keep them under a watchful eye rather than under the guardianship of a USHL coach.

Your thread was titled "get rid of Juniors"...are you saying it would be a better world if there were no constraints? Sorry, you've got to live with these constraints.

Hockey vs. Football at the HS level? Shoe companies fund most all the camps you speak of, and I think a video game company even ponies up. When you land those revenue streams for hockey you'll be able to offer something similar. Last I checked, Reebok, adidas, Nike, and Easton weren't dumping a lot of money into grassroots hockey.

The biggest difference from a player's standpoint is that hockey requires a tremendous amount of skill and football doesn't. You've mentioned that the two don't really compare. So why do you keep comparing them?

There isn't a college I know of where the coach would have a problem with a kid that said, "y'know coach, I think I'll take light loads and always stay eligible. When my eligibility runs out I'll finish my degree in the 5th year." Sorry to say this, but the coaches don't care about your academic progress as much as they care about remaining eligible and playing well. Nobody forces hockey players to graduate in four years. I'm not sure why you think they have to.

You think HOCKEY does a worse job of "developing" kids for life than football? I don't know how that could be possible. Colleges take anyone with a pulse if they think they can help the football team. And if the NCAA says they can't get in there are prep schools (think Larry Fitzgerald) and junior colleges (think that QB from Iowa a few years ago...Banks?) that can rescue. There is little oversight because there are so many kids, which is why the police blotter is full of football players. Hockey players don't get in a whole lot of trouble. You can't tell me you'd expect Sandelin to say the things you hear from Bowden when boys stray.

Once in school football coaches generally force kids to place football over academics. Recent rants by Gundy and the coach from Colorado (Bennett?) illustrate the point. Players like Blair Kiel (I think that was his name...QB at Notre Dame) and Robert Smith were disciplined for worrying about school too much. (Kiel lost and never regained the starting spot when he implied there is more to life than football while Smith actually quit the team at OSU because they wouldn't let him take challenging classes.)

I find it preposterous that anyone thinks college football as a whole does a good job of preparing its players for life beyond college. Obviously I'm looking at it from an SEC viewpoint, but I can't imagine things are much different in the Big Ten. (I graduated from Minnesota in '90 and used to shoot pool with all the FB team at Sanford Hall.) Maybe things are different once you get off the TV schools, but if you are talking about them I'd argue they do anything but.

[riverskater]

[

D1 football teams don't have redshirted players because of a desire to better prepare them for adulthood, they have them because they don't have anywhere else to put them. I'm guessing you will find redshirting less common at D2 schools.

You don't call "getting an education" preparing for adulthood? You've got to be kidding me. They red -shirt because they don't have any place to put them? Redshirting and juniors play the same role in different sports, The big difference is that education (formal) is not a part of juniors.
BTW the title of the thread is "Change the system...Get rid of Juniors???
Redshirting is the norm in better D-2 schools.

[riverskater]

Go work with the NCAA to raise the number from 18 to 30 and then figure out how member institutions can fund those and I'm sure you'll find WCHA and CCHA coaches that are more than happy to scholarship kids, park them in the classroom for a redshirt year, and keep them under a watchful eye rather than under the guardianship of a USHL coach.

Hockey vs. Football at the HS level? Shoe companies fund most all the camps you speak of, and I think a video game company even ponies up. When you land those revenue streams for hockey you'll be able to offer something similar. Last I checked, Reebok, adidas, Nike, and Easton weren't dumping a lot of money into grassroots hockey.

Here is where we agree and is the crux of this discussion.

[Blue&Gold]

"Getting an education...", if memory serves, the average ACT score of the UofM football team is somewhere south of 20... (anybody?) Are you telling me that those guys are getting a real education and staying on the team??

Couldn't resist keeping this thread off-track again..

[O-townClown]

River, I believe people should get an education with or without sports. Unlike you, I even think it's worth paying for one.

[riverskater]

River, I believe people should get an education with or without sports. Unlike you, I even think it's worth paying for one.

Thanks O-town, I'll tell my daughter, who is a junior at a top private school and at the top of her class. She is into this thing called neuro-biology. No Title IX $ either. You are going to save me a ton of money.