The Stay or Leave High School Question - by John Russo

[Stick Save]

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-ed ... stion.html

Interesting article by John Russo of the Elite League. I have heard him speak on the value of staying in MN and playing hockey through High School. To be able to stay home with their family and friends, etc. I can really appreciate and respect that angle.

But I am not so sure about his latest angle, attempting to discredit the players decisions who left by comparing their junior-level stats as rookies, to how those stats would look at the High School level, as if they translate equally in any way. And it even looks from his midseason stats that many of those players will have surpassed the MNHS and Elite League games played by their season end. So it is all a bit confusing to me, and hardly convinces me of the conclusion he is about to make.

After spending maybe 30 minutes on hockeydb gathering these 2 or 3 midseason stat lines on the players, Mr. Russo is then convinced he has answered the age-old Stay Or Leave High School Question...

"So, there we have it. I’m sure the parents of many (most) of these players are not thrilled with their decisions." Really? Case closed? I wonder how many parents he interviewed to be so sure of that last comment. How silly this whole self-serving, one-sided article is. I feel all the while dumber having read it.

IMO Mr. Russo would be better served spending his time and energy on restoring the quality and integrity of his own Elite League program, as this would go miles further in getting top-end players to stay home for hockey. The MSHSL and Russo no doubt think like a business, and are discussing behind the scenes why they are losing top players to Juniors. And trust me, they are not blaming "stupid parents" when they discuss this privately.

But publically, article after article, they take on a strategy of patronizing parents and blaming their poor judgment for players leaving their programs.

If the MSHSL and guys like Russo don't find the courage to look in the mirror and face their current State of Hockey, this trend of players leaving early will no doubt continue, and likely increase. And unfortunately a desperate sounding, one-pager in Let's Play Hockey will do little to reverse it.

[almostashappy]

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-ed ... stion.html

Interesting article by John Russo of the Elite League. I have heard him speak on the value of staying in MN and playing hockey through High School. To be able to stay home with their family and friends, etc. I can really appreciate and respect that angle.

But I am not so sure about his latest angle, attempting to discredit the players decisions who left by comparing their junior-level stats as rookies, to how those stats would look at the High School level, as if they translate equally in any way.

The "latest angle" is a dubious argument based on bogus comparisons, no doubt. But I thought that he even took the "able to stay home with their family" argument to a whole new level...if a kid leaves home before graduating from his hometown high school, he'll be leaving his church! And he'll be away from his parent's watchful eyes!

It's like we're Amish, or something.

[puckbreath]

While I am firmly in the "don't leave" camp, one has to take Russo's take on the subject with a grain of salt.

He has a (very large) monetary interest in kid's not leaving.

[almostashappy]

While I am firmly in the "don't leave" camp, one has to take Russo's take on the subject with a grain of salt.

He has a (very large) monetary interest in kid's not leaving.

No, no...he only has the best interests of the kids in mind. It's only those greedy USHL owners who care about money.

Also love how he casually identifies play within the Elite League as "top junior level games"...as if any of its teams could compete in the USHL.

Now that would be putting money behind the mouth...any reason why Russo's Elite League teams couldn't play in a friendly series of games against teams from the USHL, or even the "lesser" NAHL?

[JSR]

While I am firmly in the "don't leave" camp, one has to take Russo's take on the subject with a grain of salt.

He has a (very large) monetary interest in kid's not leaving.

No, no...he only has the best interests of the kids in mind. It's only those greedy USHL owners who care about money.

Also love how he casually identifies play within the Elite League as "top junior level games"...as if any of its teams could compete in the USHL.

Now that would be putting money behind the mouth...any reason why Russo's Elite League teams couldn't play in a friendly series of games against teams from the USHL, or even the "lesser" NAHL?

The USNDTP is somewhat competitive in their USHL schedule but even they "struggle", not sure how this guy can believe his collective of high schoolers could eb seen as "top level junior" caliber... Are there kids who could play top level juniors in that collective, yes, are there enough of them on each team to make those games between those Elite League teams on that level, no....

[greybeard58]

A 2012 990 for the Project Prep Olympic Development Program owned by JR lists total income of $561,357 and expenses of $413,095. I guess he pays the coaches pretty good.
He is promoting his money maker.

[bubblehockey27]

This article is so biased and subjective it’s nearly cringe worthy. Looking at one year of undergraduates’ performance in junior leagues is conclusive enough? I’ve always said kids should do what’s best for their own personal development, which doesn’t mean everyone should be put on the same plan. Some kids could benefit greater from leaving to play juniors, it makes them more mature, gives them more exposure, better development, allows them to play a more physical game, etc. There are a lot of reasons kids can/should leave early, but only if it’s a good fit for that player. I’d be curious to know how Russo determined these kids weren’t good students either. Like MN is the only place to get a quality HS education? Get serious. I also like how he says the junior route is the ideal route for after HS. So it’s ideal for after HS, but you shouldn’t leave a year early because you won’t get to play and you’ll miss your family?! I can’t follow the logic there. Don’t get me wrong, I love MN HS hockey, but I love the game of hockey even more and would much rather see kids do what they feel is right for their own career.

The other thing that bothers me about this article is the fact that he thinks you need to play for your hometown, be by your family and friends, and go to your church in order to develop properly as a hockey player. So can you not learn and grow and develop as a hockey player and a person from staying with a billet family? The argument is just ridiculous. Junior hockey isn’t for everyone, I’ll admit that. But neither is MN HS hockey. Some kids want to leave and do the whole juniors scene, and that’s fine. This whole article reminded me of a politician’s “I’m right, here are some vague statistics that somewhat support what I’m advocating.” attitude. Let the kid and family decide what the best path is.

[almostashappy]

I also like how he says the junior route is the ideal route for after HS. So it’s ideal for after HS, but you shouldn’t leave a year early because you won’t get to play and you’ll miss your family?! I can’t follow the logic there.

The logic is that if they don't go to juniors until after their senior year of high school, they'll enjoy all of the "benefits" of playing in the Elite League. Or that Russo will enjoy all of the benefits of having all of those "formidable" players paying to play on his Elite League teams. It's one or the other...I'm leaning towards the latter.

To be fair, Russo claims that an 18-year old is more mature, and stronger, and has all of the self-confidence that comes with being Prom King, BMOC, and a high school goal-scoring machine. And they'll have another year of faith formation at their church under their belt, so they'll better equipped to venture out amongst the heathen billet families.

Of course, Russo conveniently forgets to consider the fact that there are a number of "formidable" hockey players who are already 18 when they start their senior year of high school. And when he claims that a good MN high school program develops players as well as a "lesser" NAHL team, he fails to mention that that not every high school program is "good," and that the MSHSL limits the ability of "formidable" players to migrate towards these good programs.

I'm also a stay-in-school guy, but this scree really is over-the-top. Hey scorekeeper, how many Canadian NHL'ers left home before age 18? Seems to be a working model north of the border.

[The Exiled One]

Regardless of the validity of the data, his case is completely blown by the obvious conflict of interest. A better article would be written from the POV's of a player who stayed and regretted it and a player who left and regretted it. It would be difficult to find two such players; articulate enough to make their case, brave enough to admit they were wrong. But I digress...

The major flaw in Russo's article is that it doesn't consider situation or objectives AT ALL!! He doesn't even state an ASSUMPTION of what the players' objectives are. D1 scholarship? NHL draft? NHL career? D3? More playing time? Fun? Money? Adventure?

How about situation? Defenseman, forward, or goalie? Tall or short? Fast or slow? Offensive minded or defensive minded? Good in school or bad in school? Rich or poor? Introvert or extrovert? Old for his grade or young for his grade? Scholarship in hand or no scholarship offers? Good HS team or bad HS team? Good HS coach or bad HS coach?

Trying to evaluate decisions without objective and situation is a completely wasted effort. No valid conclusions can be drawn. Worthless article.

[almostashappy]

Regardless of the validity of the data, his case is completely blown by the obvious conflict of interest. A better article would be written from the POV's of a player who stayed and regretted it and a player who left and regretted it. It would be difficult to find two such players; articulate enough to make their case, brave enough to admit they were wrong. But I digress...

The major flaw in Russo's article is that it doesn't consider situation or objectives AT ALL!! He doesn't even state an ASSUMPTION of what the players' objectives are. D1 scholarship? NHL draft? NHL career? D3? More playing time? Fun? Money? Adventure?

How about situation? Defenseman, forward, or goalie? Tall or short? Fast or slow? Offensive minded or defensive minded? Good in school or bad in school? Rich or poor? Introvert or extrovert? Old for his grade or young for his grade? Scholarship in hand or no scholarship offers? Good HS team or bad HS team? Good HS coach or bad HS coach?

Trying to evaluate decisions without objective and situation is a completely wasted effort. No valid conclusions can be drawn. Worthless article.

Russo asserts that a junior league season is a failure if a 17-year old player is watching USHL games from the stands as a healthy scratch. And that a high school senior season is a success if the player scores lots of goals, sleeps in his own bed, is close to his high school girlfriend (all helping to maintain a high level of self-confidence). But a junior league season could be considered a success, even with limited playing time, if the experience and all of the extra practice time/weight room time better prepared the player for the next year of play at that higher level of competition. And a senior league high school season might be considered less of a success, even if you score a zillion goals, if you're playing on a team out in the sticks against poor competition (Moose Lake comes to mind).

So something closer to an "objective" test would be to compare the first year junior league statistics of players who stayed at their high school against the second year stats of players who left before their senior year season. But that's just if you want to do an objective test. If all you want to do is give a self-serving sermon, then any kind of bogus arguments will work, so long as they reach the ears of at least a few unsuspecting souls out in the pews.

[The Exiled One]

If all you want to do is give a self-serving sermon, then any kind of bogus arguments will work, so long as they reach the ears of at least a few unsuspecting souls out in the pews.

Exactly. If any of you are short for time, here's a synopsis of the article:

• A lot more kids are leaving HS hockey, but you should stay.
• Here are a bunch of numbers: 51398575.381
• That is why you should continue playing HS hockey.

I, for one, am completely sold. All I need is a time machine and I'm for sure playing HS hockey next season!

[Stick Save]

If all you want to do is give a self-serving sermon, then any kind of bogus arguments will work, so long as they reach the ears of at least a few unsuspecting souls out in the pews.

Exactly. If any of you are short for time, here's a synopsis of the article:

• A lot more kids are leaving HS hockey, but you should stay.
• Here are a bunch of numbers: 51398575.381
• That is why you should continue playing HS hockey.

I, for one, am completely sold. All I need is a time machine and I'm for sure playing HS hockey next season!

I don't know, I think those three bullets might still confuse those ignorant MN parents who are considering other options. And for sure the dumb players who already left, who it sounds like could barely make grades in school.

He should further simplify his message...

1. Parents, I'm John Russo of Coaches Corner. I've done EXTENSIVE research on this topic - So there we have it, look no further.

2. Player, don't be even dumber. Stay and play here... Dummy.

3. Dream of playing in the best Junior hockey league in the world, my Upper Midwest High School Elite League.

4. Buy my book. http://www.russocoachescorner.com/purchase-book.html

[Snipuh21]

What the article tells me is that Canadian Juniors and the USHL both have pretty tough competition, probably a lot tougher overall than Minnesota high school hockey.

Why would it be a surprise that players that leave from high school would not do as well as those that stay? They're essentially playing up one or two years against pretty much the best players at the higher age group. The question is whether the players that leave will be able to weather the initial storm of size, speed and toughness and become better players themselves.

IMO, players that leave should be applauded for pushing themselves to be the best player they can be. The way to do that is to play against the best competition they can find, and the simple observation that they may not be doing as well in these other leagues as they would be in high school makes the case that the competition is better.

[WestMetro]

There seems to be a general consensus that kids should stay and finish out high school at home , but if and only if they can play enough competitive hockey so as to ensure maximizing future hockey potential if that is their goal, ( or at least being neutral compared if they left early to play juniors.)

There seems to be a consensus that both objectives are not currently being fully satisfied for some of the best talent in this the best hockey state.

If one accepts those two assumptions , what specific steps are needed by what specific Minnesota organizations to maximize the chances of those two goals being better achieved: , i.e.

o MSHSL?
o Individual high schools?
o Private enterprises like Achiever, Elite League or ?
o Bantam associations
o Community organizations or new community alliances?
o Other?

[almostashappy]

There seems to be a general consensus that kids should stay and finish out high school at home , but if and only if they can play enough competitive hockey so as to ensure maximizing future hockey potential if that is their goal, ( or at least being neutral compared if they left early to play juniors.)

There seems to be a consensus that both objectives are not currently being fully satisfied for some of the best talent in this the best hockey state.

If one accepts those two assumptions , what specific steps are needed by what specific Minnesota organizations to maximize the chances of those two goals being better achieved: , i.e.

o MSHSL?
o Individual high schools?
o Private enterprises like Achiever, Elite League or ?
o Bantam associations
o Community organizations or new community alliances?
o Other?

I'll turn the question on its head. Why should the MSHSL-sanctioned boys hockey league, comprised of 256 schools and over 6,500 participants, make substantial changes to how it does business in order to try to keep hold of less than 1% of its players?

[WestMetro]

Almost As Happy :

Yes, your question is just as legitimate as mine.

Im only trying to get to what specifics people would recommend if they accept the two premises to begin with. What are their specific ideas?
Would those specific ideas benefit the top talent enough to retain them, as well as benefit everyone else?

40+/- kids opted out last year, of which 15 or so were higher performers. Should it be a goal to keep most of the 15 or all 40 through their senior season, through specific competitive statewide changes, or not?

I could argue your point as well. I saw examples last few seasons where departing kids opened up available H.S. slots for underrecognized kids, who then greatly overachieved expectations in their senior season when they got more playing time.

[keepyourheadup]

The trouble with Russo's thinking here is that high school hockey will survive but it just won't be the same as what we all grew up with. Its highly unlikely that we'll see more of our top end kids stay, in fact I would argue that we are likely to see an even greater number of kids choose to move on. The dam holding kids back is in bad shape and John seems to feel it can be repaired and unfortunately for guys like him that isn't going to happen. The USHL and WHL never put forth the effort to get kids from Minny in the past like they do now, the examples of kids succeeding will jump as the departures increase. I'm certainly no advocate for kids to leave home early and its a very personal choice but look at Tyer Sheehy for example. Its pretty much an excepted fact that after he decommitted from OSU colleges wanted to see him at the next level before he could get a real offer so he heads to Waterloo, lights it up and 2 months later the kid has a handful of big time programs chasing him around with pens in their hands. Would he have gotten the same offer had he stayed, most likely, but he wanted to clarify his future and you can't blame a kid for that. Bottom line is we are, for better or worse, heading towards the same development system employed outside Minnesota or at least something very similar.

[WestMetro]

OK, lets stick with the Sheehy example.

Lets say everyone who has expressed concern about the number of early H.S. departures had agreed upon a list of a dozen public and private program recommendation changes, and that those had been implemented 5 years ago.

Then, after Sheehy finished his senior Elite Season last fall , would the sum total of those successful recommendation changes have produced enough improved competition to convince him with his family to finish out at Burnsville HS while living at home?

What if he could have played 35 H.S games instead of 25, extending the season through end of April? How about some nonconference Canadian/East Coast/Shattuck/USHL games? How about state all star games scattered through the regular season? Or in April after the March tournament?

What if hockey benefactors started a pool of college scholarship money for those who finish out H.S., which could be used at college of their choice?
What if Minn colleges could not offer commitments to Minnesotans who didn't finish out Minnesota HS?

Or , for those who leave, an incentive to stay in Minnesota and play for top talent Junior or NDTP type program here in the State of Hockey while living at home until 18, instead of far away locations?

I suppose there are dozens of ideas. If not willing to stick neck out and try some, then yes.... we will continue to see an increase in the number of early departures leaving the State of Hockey to finish HS education and to play hockey elsewhere.

Seems like State of Hockey ought to be able to come up with some ideas to better compete in this increasingly demanding marketplace. Rather than just watch 40 our kids leave each year. Hardly seems right to see our top 18 year olds going to live , educate and play hockey in Iowa.

Im just sayin........

[almostashappy]

What if he could have played 35 H.S games instead of 25, extending the season through end of April? How about some nonconference Canadian/East Coast/Shattuck/USHL games? How about state all star games scattered through the regular season? Or in April after the March tournament?

Is there really a need to extend the season for these top-end kids, if they've already got an open invitation to play for their USHL team just as soon as their high school season is over in late February or early March?

Never mind the fact that you'd have to pry the concept of three separate seasons out of the MSHSL's cold dead hands.

[keepyourheadup]

I'm in favor of almost anything to keep them here but the reality is there is almost no chance the MSHSL will cater to a elite group of HS hockey players. You'd almost have to start a midget program and maybe have half a dozen metro teams compete with Shattuck. No longer high school but they'd still be in their same school and living at home. I could envision this happening with the current hockey climate. For me personally it would be a sad day. How long do you think it would take Bernie or the Blades to jump all over this plan?

[loonanny]

I have always found this to be a captivating topic. Lots of differing opinions and ideas...some good and some not so good. Concerning the latter, John Russo is hardly a source of credible insight as he undoubtedly has a "horse in this race" and a rather large financial one at that. My opinion is that the MSHSL needs to find a way to make staying in high school compelling for the high school player, i.e. more games, a longer season, better coaching, or things will get much worse before they get better. People are hard-wired to seek better...always have been. In 1492, CC set sail with the Punto, El-nino, and Santa Fe in search of better. Hockey families exhibit these same tendencies as they search for better opportunities for their hockey playing kids. Human nature, if you will. Defections to junior hockey will continue until the MSHSL creates a better product and makes it more compelling to stay.

That said, I think the middle ground is best concerning staying or leaving. For some, staying is best(Bjugstad, Rau, Leddy, Kloos) and for some leaving is best(Boyd, Skjei, Fasching.) Hard to argue that any of these players chose the wrong path. However, one population that is largely ignored in this discussion are the players who had the opportunity to leave,
stayed, and ended up in hockey oblivion. Two NTDP invitees come to mind here..Christian Horn and Joe Rubbelke. Both were offered spots and declined, choosing instead to remain in their Minnesota Schools. One is now floundering in the USHL while the other is at Hamline. Makes me wonder if their choices would be different if given the chance to do it all over again.

[xy]

To be fair to Horn, I don't know that you can say he's floundering in the USHL - he's averaging almost a point a game this year, and is committed to St. Lawrence. Being able to stay at home, and then winning a state title in what was a pretty memorable year for Benilde, doesn't seem like something he'd regret. The decision he made that you can see he might wonder about is giving it a shot at the U as a walk-on, where there was always a question as to how much he'd play, but if it was his dream to play for the Gophers you can't blame him one bit for giving it a shot and he still ended up in a pretty good place.

[bsmguy]

Lets look at the question fromt his angle: Does Minnesota HS Hockey prepare a player for college hockey?

I pulled the MR Hockey and Brimsek nominees from 2011, 2012 and 2013 and looked them up on Hockey db. I asssume if any sample should be tested for college readiness, its this group. ( am counting Vanellii as ready becasue he had a great year in the Major Juniors)

There are a total of 36 players nominated. Of those 36, about 33% went straight to college (Besse, Rau, Daly, Bischoff, Archibald, Reno, Gleinke, Vanelli, Zajac, LaBate, Sampair, Merchant ). Only six of these players dressed for 30 games their freshman year, which is about 80% of the total that a college team plays. Only these six (Besse, Labate, Rau, Everson, Vanellii and Archibald) went straight to college and had more then ten points as freshmen.


So, of the very best Minnesota high school players the last three years, 6 of 36 (about 15%) were ready to contirbute meaningfully to thier college program straight from high school. Of course, the percentage of players ready tio contribute would only go down if we look outside of the cream of the crop.

One surprise is that two of the players (20%) who went straight to college left college hockey after their freshman season.

If i was a college coach, I think I would not rely on a freshman straight from Minnesota HS to make a serious contribution to my team. Minnesota Hockey does not, generally, prepare players to play college hiockey. They end up needing more development somewhere else.

[MrBoDangles]

Lets look at the question fromt his angle: Does Minnesota HS Hockey prepare a player for college hockey?

I pulled the MR Hockey and Brimsek nominees from 2011, 2012 and 2013 and looked them up on Hockey db. I asssume if any sample should be tested for college readiness, its this group. ( am counting Vanellii as ready becasue he had a great year in the Major Juniors)

There are a total of 36 players nominated. Of those 36, about 33% went straight to college (Besse, Rau, Daly, Bischoff, Archibald, Reno, Gleinke, Vanelli, Zajac, LaBate, Sampair, Merchant ). Only six of these players dressed for 30 games their freshman year, which is about 80% of the total that a college team plays. Only these six (Besse, Labate, Rau, Everson, Vanellii and Archibald) went straight to college and had more then ten points as freshmen.


So, of the very best Minnesota high school players the last three years, 6 of 36 (about 15%) were ready to contirbute meaningfully to thier college program straight from high school. Of course, the percentage of players ready tio contribute would only go down if we look outside of the cream of the crop.

One surprise is that two of the players (20%) who went straight to college left college hockey after their freshman season.

If i was a college coach, I think I would not rely on a freshman straight from Minnesota HS to make a serious contribution to my team. Minnesota Hockey does not, generally, prepare players to play college hiockey. They end up needing more development somewhere else.

Seth Ambroz started playing in the USHL when he was 15 years old and was highly touted the whole time. When he came to the Gophers he was outplayed by many other newcomers that came straight from high school... He's finally starting to show some potential that everybody saw before he left for jrs. Could have switched from New Prague to BSM or Edina and been just as prepared.

Lots to be said for being home with/for family, school times, outdoor ice, dominating at a level,.. Etc. They spend more time on a bus in jrs than actually playing/practicing hockey. I haven't seen much difference in Gopher players that have come in as 18 year olds... But of course it will help being a older 19-20 year old since they're an older freshman..

You can't expect 18 year olds to step in and be dominant at the college level, no matter what path they took.

[Sats81]

Lets look at the question fromt his angle: Does Minnesota HS Hockey prepare a player for college hockey?

I pulled the MR Hockey and Brimsek nominees from 2011, 2012 and 2013 and looked them up on Hockey db. I asssume if any sample should be tested for college readiness, its this group. ( am counting Vanellii as ready becasue he had a great year in the Major Juniors)

There are a total of 36 players nominated. Of those 36, about 33% went straight to college (Besse, Rau, Daly, Bischoff, Archibald, Reno, Gleinke, Vanelli, Zajac, LaBate, Sampair, Merchant ). Only six of these players dressed for 30 games their freshman year, which is about 80% of the total that a college team plays. Only these six (Besse, Labate, Rau, Everson, Vanellii and Archibald) went straight to college and had more then ten points as freshmen.


So, of the very best Minnesota high school players the last three years, 6 of 36 (about 15%) were ready to contirbute meaningfully to thier college program straight from high school. Of course, the percentage of players ready tio contribute would only go down if we look outside of the cream of the crop.

One surprise is that two of the players (20%) who went straight to college left college hockey after their freshman season.

If i was a college coach, I think I would not rely on a freshman straight from Minnesota HS to make a serious contribution to my team. Minnesota Hockey does not, generally, prepare players to play college hiockey. They end up needing more development somewhere else.

Seth Ambroz started playing in the USHL when he was 15 years old and was highly touted the whole time. When he came to the Gophers he was outplayed by many other newcomers that came straight from high school... He's finally starting to show some potential that everybody saw before he left for jrs. Could have switched from New Prague to BSM or Edina and been just as prepared.

Lots to be said for being home with/for family, school times, outdoor ice, dominating at a level,.. Etc. They spend more time on a bus in jrs than actually playing/practicing hockey. I haven't seen much difference in Gopher players that have come in as 18 year olds... But of course it will help being a older 19-20 year old since they're an older freshman..

You can't expect 18 year olds to step in and be dominant at the college level, no matter what path they took.

I think Fasching has been as "dominant" as possible as an 18 year old can be. He has been excellent majority of this season.

As for Ambroz, I think the big ice sheet at Mariucci had a lot to do with him struggling early in his college career as he is not the best skater.