HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

packerboy wrote:

Don't_Cost_Nothin wrote:

packerboy wrote:

So, when some college coach like Gopher Blog's hero, who never lifted a finger, takes the podium and rips parents and coaches of the kids that become the product of our programs........ go coach at an orphange. Sorry I just can't let it go.

I don't think said coach has ever had an issue with the kids leaving. His issues have been with the manner they have decided to do so. In my mind leaving in the middle of something is not the proper way to handle yourself. I also don't believe that telling the coach you are going to stay and then behind his back leave is OK.

Gopher Blog's hero from Wayzata is typical. He gets all bent out of shape when he is affected but doesnt give a flying flip if a kid, includung his own, leaves a high school program so he can be better prepared to play for the Gophers.

I dont buy into all of the angst about mid season. College coaches recruit kids to play for them and then leave for a few dollars at the drop of a hat every day.

We expect all of this loyality from these kids when all they see their whole lives is everybody grabbing at better opportunities.

Just be glad fo their success and proud if you played some small part in it.

I guess that is where we differ. I am a firm believer in finishing what you start. I am all for kids leaving early for the next level and a bigger payoff. It is thier life and thier talent they, need to take advantage of it. I will take issue with people in general for leaving while in the middle of something. As for a kid hockey player, he owes me no loyalty, he may owe some to his friends and teammates though.

Don't_Cost_Nothin wrote:I don't think said coach has ever had an issue with the kids leaving.

A few people who don't have access to what really goes on behind the scenes may take superficial things they see in the media and run with assumptions. But that is simply ignorance. The reality is they are very proud of the guys that get their shot in the pros. Of course, the preference is that they would stay until they are ready to make the step directly to the NHL but they certainly don't hold it against the player who signs a big money deal. If they had a problem with guys leaving early, they would avoid recruiting them a lot more. Like I said, a lot of these early departures come back to campus in the off-season and work out there. If there was ill will from the coaching staff because they left, they certainly wouldn't be welcomed back.

When guys like EJ and Kessel leave and they are in the NHL the next season, what is there to really be upset about? When Goligoski decided to sign a pro deal this last summer, nobody said an ill word about it. He had little left to prove in college. Same goes for a number of other guys. The rare exception was when one guy lied about his intention when he was asked directly about it and the other occasion was when a guy bailed on his team in the middle of year. But those have been the exceptions when you consider how many have signed pro deals since he took over. The Potulnys, Irmens, Kessels, EJs, and so on did not have any negative vibes thrown their way when they signed.

Getting back to the actual topic at hand, I think most people are proud of the kids that move on to higher levels. It just seems like it is a small percentage of people that get mad because the kid didn't do enough to pay him/them back.

Dont cost, Are you saying that a kid should not reach for his goals because his friends might get mad. That is awful. When he gets a promotion at work should he not take because his co-workers might get mad? The kids that are leaving want more than a 26 game season, better competion, and for the most part better coaching. Most of these kids are not failing when they leave. I will say it again, if you have not been asked to move on it's hard to comment. The kids that are playing in the USHL, NAHL, or Shattuck are kids who want more, and for the most part get it, because they work there tail off to achieve it. Unlike there friends who stayed home to go to the Senior Prom.

gopherhockey1234 wrote:Dont cost, Are you saying that a kid should not reach for his goals because his friends might get mad. That is awful. When he gets a promotion at work should he not take because his co-workers might get mad? The kids that are leaving want more than a 26 game season, better competion, and for the most part better coaching. Most of these kids are not failing when they leave. I will say it again, if you have not been asked to move on it's hard to comment. The kids that are playing in the USHL, NAHL, or Shattuck are kids who want more, and for the most part get it, because they work there tail off to achieve it. Unlike there friends who stayed home to go to the Senior Prom.

I love the sarcasm and the flammable nature of the post but lets not judge those that stay either.

Ryan McDonaugh stayed and won a baseball championship and still went #12 in the first round. You can work hard, want more and stay in high school and do just fine too.

gopherhockey1234 wrote:Dont cost, Are you saying that a kid should not reach for his goals because his friends might get mad. That is awful. When he gets a promotion at work should he not take because his co-workers might get mad? The kids that are leaving want more than a 26 game season, better competion, and for the most part better coaching. Most of these kids are not failing when they leave. I will say it again, if you have not been asked to move on it's hard to comment. The kids that are playing in the USHL, NAHL, or Shattuck are kids who want more, and for the most part get it, because they work there tail off to achieve it. Unlike there friends who stayed home to go to the Senior Prom.

Alright where to start on this...

One, read my past post in this thread and you would be sure to learn that I am all for kids leaving early to better themselves and their careers. This I have stated before as well as in my last post.

The context of my last post was in reply to a certain coach from Wayzata was upset more becasue his players in one case were not honest with him and in another case left the team in mid-season. Since you like the business analogies so well this would be like being a key player on a project and leaving your co-workers holding the bag because you got promoted. Sure it is great for you but don't get upset when people question your character.

Does a 17 year old kid owe a 45-50 year old adult anything. I guess I would say he has more character if he desides to leave his buddies to pursue his dreams. I am not one to judge. If a family thinks it's a good choice, I have to respect that. Ryan Mac from Cretin was already big enough and strong enough when he made his choice to stay, most kids are not.

I haven't been on this in a few days so I'm sorry that this thread has gone on for three pages without clarification on the Star Tribune article....let me clear things up:

Every year at Christmas time players from White Bear Lake's former come back during their season's break (generally USHL or college) and practice with the varsity squad a few times. For example, last year, Zach Hansen, David Grun, and Tony Roth came back and practiced helping out on the penalty kill and sharing the wealth of knowledge they've gained through their own experiences.
So when Hansen asked if he could come back and skate, Sager wasn't thinking that it would only cause distractions or that if he got hurt there could be a lawsuit, as somebody posted earlier. Especially since he allowed former captains Matt Hartmann and Caleb Wolfgram to come back and skate this year!

On another note, Hansen was NOT pressured into making the jump into the USHL as a senior. From what I've heard (which is directly from the horse's mouth) is that he was going to the U of M after his senior year reguardless if he left to play in the USHL or if he stayed for his senior year. He was slightly pressured by some NHL scouts as they said they thought he would be crazy not to leave for the USHL his senior year because they think Sager is nuts! Apparently Hansen made the right decision as he is fitting in quite well with the Stampede...actually quite well is an understatement.

Sager's gotta go.

sicknasty7722 wrote:some NHL scouts think Sager is nuts!

Pretty smart scouts!!

IMO, College Sports should have an age limit. 5 years from HS graduation should be long enough to still be playing College Sports. (Obviously with some exceptions) There is absolutely no need for a 25 year old guy to still be playing college hockey. NHL scouts will take a chance on a kid who's 19 and has potential over a guy who's 25 anyday. It's time to get a job if your 25 and still playing college hockey, your not going anywhere in hockey.

Good idea in theory but if there were an age limit on college hockey, more kids would leave high school early so they can play juniors and college. There's no way you can totally get rid of juniors because very few kids can go straight from HS to college. If kids were to wait until after HS to play juniors and played 2 years, they would only have 3 years of eligibility in college, making the possibility of graduation from college far-fetched at best. It just won't work to put an age limit on college.

komada77 wrote:

IMO, College Sports should have an age limit. 5 years from HS graduation should be long enough to still be playing College Sports. (Obviously with some exceptions) There is absolutely no need for a 25 year old guy to still be playing college hockey. NHL scouts will take a chance on a kid who's 19 and has potential over a guy who's 25 anyday. It's time to get a job if your 25 and still playing college hockey, your not going anywhere in hockey.

Good idea in theory but if there were an age limit on college hockey, more kids would leave high school early so they can play juniors and college. There's no way you can totally get rid of juniors because very few kids can go straight from HS to college. If kids were to wait until after HS to play juniors and played 2 years, they would only have 3 years of eligibility in college, making the possibility of graduation from college far-fetched at best. It just won't work to put an age limit on college.

I dont think an age limit would be right but they could count a year in juniors as a year of college eligibility. If colleges want their players to develop in juniors, fine but it cost the player a year and the college has to still give them 4 on a scholarship.

gopherhockey1234 wrote:Dont cost, Are you saying that a kid should not reach for his goals because his friends might get mad. That is awful. When he gets a promotion at work should he not take because his co-workers might get mad? The kids that are leaving want more than a 26 game season, better competion, and for the most part better coaching. Most of these kids are not failing when they leave. I will say it again, if you have not been asked to move on it's hard to comment. The kids that are playing in the USHL, NAHL, or Shattuck are kids who want more, and for the most part get it, because they work there tail off to achieve it. Unlike there friends who stayed home to go to the Senior Prom.

Define "more."

It is true that some that leave their HS early for Jr. hockey do get a college scholarship (many have made a commitment prior to leaving).

It is also true that some stay at their HS and develop into D1/NHL talent just fine (Ness, Ohsie, Gardiner, Lee, Niskenen, McDonough, Marvin, etc).

Face it - by the time a kid reaches his soph/jr year in HS, a good college coach/pro scout will be able to see potential/talent, even if the kid has to play against Kittson County or Red Lake Falls. Leaving early for Jr. doesn't mean you will magically become a better player. College coaches/scouts do like to see players play against tougher completion so they can be more confident of their judgments, which is why the Elite league and USA Hockey camps are so well attended by scouts/coaches.

The bottom line is that there is no formula/path that works for every player. What I don't like is the attitude is that if you don't leave, you're not trying to be your best/your not working your tail off.

I’m sorry you had a bad H.S. experience but it’s not like that for everyone.

lampthelight wrote: IMO, College Sports should have an age limit. 5 years from HS graduation should be long enough to still be playing College Sports. (Obviously with some exceptions) There is absolutely no need for a 25 year old guy to still be playing college hockey. NHL scouts will take a chance on a kid who's 19 and has potential over a guy who's 25 anyday. It's time to get a job if your 25 and still playing college hockey, your not going anywhere in hockey.

You're just joking... right?

gopherhockey1234 wrote:Does a 17 year old kid owe a 45-50 year old adult anything. I guess I would say he has more character if he desides to leave his buddies to pursue his dreams. I am not one to judge. If a family thinks it's a good choice, I have to respect that. Ryan Mac from Cretin was already big enough and strong enough when he made his choice to stay, most kids are not.

Gopherhockey,

yes, that kid did owe the coach something. That coach invested a scholarship in him for the season. Again, I don't take issue with a player leaving early at any level if that is what they, their family, or their "adviser" believes is right.

At the end of the day all you can judge most people by is their word. The player gave his word that he would play the season with the team and then bailed. Does the coach not have the right to be upset that he took a man at his word? There is no doubt someone who leaves his team in mid-season has character. Is that character a positive one?

Hey Don't cost, Lets see if you will leave for 3,000,000. I would venture to guess you make think about it. Does Kyle Okposo owe that to Lucia.... no. I bet you would give it some serious thought. Three million dollars is alot of money. Go ahead and judge me.

hockey nut wrote:Hey Don't cost, Lets see if you will leave for 3,000,000. I would venture to guess you make think about it. Does Kyle Okposo owe that to Lucia.... no. I bet you would give it some serious thought. Three million dollars is alot of money. Go ahead and judge me.

Under the new NHL collective bargaining agreement he could have signed that contract before his college season started or when the season was over. So don't tell me it was the money that caused him to leave.

At the end of the day Kyle did not like situation he was in with the gophers and decided to jump ship in the middle of the season. I am happy he has moved on to the next level and is doing well. Good for him.

packerboy wrote:I dont think an age limit would be right but they could count a year in juniors as a year of college eligibility. If colleges want their players to develop in juniors, fine but it cost the player a year and the college has to still give them 4 on a scholarship.

PB, That is close, but not quite exactly what i was thinking, unless I am off on what you mean. Here's my thoughts....


I will go on record as saying that I am VERY OPPOSED to Junior hockey the way it is now, but I can see it being an ASSET to the development of players, if tweaked a little bit. I may or may not hear a lot of arguements on this, but I am very prepared to defend my position.

Here is how I would tweak it if I was the NCAA:

1. Players should NOT be allowed to leave HS early to play Juniors.
2. How you get to play Junior Hockey
.....a. Year following HS grad(with no Commitment)
.....b. Used as Redshirt year(with Commitment)
3. Max of 6 years from HS graduation to finish college hockey
.....a. Military
.....b. Medical Redshirt
.....c. Other

Now Explained:

1. It's simple, finish HS then move on. With the Elite leagues, technology, and "boreds" like this now, if your good enough, you'll be found. Still, players will always transfer schools, it's just going to happen. I don't agree with it, but it's a fact of life now.

2a. With no commitment to a college, players are free with no penalty to play in Junior Hockey for 1 year. After 1 year of Juniors, they must then enroll and ''WALK ON'' at the school they wish to play for(Commitment).

2b. After a player commits to a school, whether it be by walking on or accepting a scholarship, they will be allowed 1 more year of Junior hockey, at the expense of the players "REDSHIRT" year(Directly out of HS), or 1st year of eligibily(After 1 year of Juniors). During this year, they must be enrolled full time(12 credits) at committed instituion. These credits can be taken in any way, including CLEP testing. After the 2nd year out of HS, all development of players must be done by the college coaching staffs, or off-season camps.

3. 6 years after HS gradutaion a player will completely lose eligibility to play NCAA hockey.
Exceptions:
3a. Military Leave: Self Explanatory
3b. Medical Redshirt: Normal NCAA med. Redshirt rules apply.
3c. Players take any amount of years off (work/personal reasons/whatever the case may be) after HS( as long as they are not violating NCAA eligibilty rules), then decide to come and try to play.

In this theory, a player can be ANY age playing college hockey. However, it should bring the average age down across college hockey, and put more emphasis on the schooling aspect. Which, according to the NCAA, is the most important thing. After all, they are called STUDENT-athletes, not ATHLETES-students.

Questions? Thoughts? Comments?

This is a good topic to debate, one that SHOULD leave, players, coaches, teams out of it.

In theory I can see the positives in you plan.

My question is what would prevent the players from leaving early to play in Canada's major juniors and other such leagues?

I fear the plan that you laid out may actually hurt college hockey.

Don't_Cost_Nothin wrote:My question is what would prevent the players from leaving early to play in Canada's major juniors and other such leagues?

I fear the plan that you laid out may actually hurt college hockey.

I see I neglected to put in there that a player who leaves HS early to play in ANY Junior League would forfeit his status as an amatuer player. That would keep the kids in HS. Finishing HS early(Like Aaron Ness) would be an option for those who want to leave HS early. Either way, I'm stressing the EDUCATION aspect.

As far as hurting college hockey...

I do not believe that it would hurt college hockey. I feel it would strengthen it top to bottom(D1-D3). The players who play Juniors are not forced to go to a D1 school, many would choose the D3 route, making D3 stronger. Staying in Juniors and hoping to get drafted is also an option.

Another thing that i failed to mention. Unlike other sports, hockey is not an option at Junior Colleges. Because of this I feel that the transfer rule in college hockey should not apply(unless D1 to D1). So a player who is playing D3 should be allowed to transfer to a D1, without sitting out a year after his Fresh, or Soph year(Like he was at a JUCO). After that, he must sit out.

I understand that the D3 schools would not like this, but it would be no different if a normal student decides to transfer, it is always the students decision.

lampthelight wrote:I see I neglected to put in there that a player who leaves HS early to play in ANY Junior League would forfeit his status as an amatuer player. That would keep the kids in HS. Finishing HS early(Like Aaron Ness) would be an option for those who want to leave HS early. Either way, I'm stressing the EDUCATION aspect.

As far as hurting college hockey...

I do not believe that it would hurt college hockey.

I absolutely disagree that it wouldn't hurt college hockey. First of all, it would wreck any kind of Canadian recruiting for college hockey. When a quality hockey player gets into his later teens in Canada, he basically has two viable options. Major Jrs. or Junior leagues like the BCHL. If the NCAA suddenly says ANY junior hockey would make a player ineligible to play in college, then you can kiss a good chunk of good Canadian players good bye. That will reduce the talent level in NCAA hockey. Are you telling me that is good?

Second, if you limit the options for USA kids (especially the very elite players with pro dreams), they may see their long term development as being stifled by your suggested rules. Kids that currently go to the NTDP have legit pro possibilities and they aren't going to want to be stifled by having to stay at a level they have mostly outgrown. Limiting their options may actually make these level of players MORE willing to head north for Major Jrs. and avoid playing college hockey because they'll see the development process in Canada as being the best option in their later teens since juniors/NCAA route would no longer be a possibility under your suggestions.

I also think it would hurt American hockey as a whole as it slows down the development process for some of its very elite players. People in MN are spoiled by the HS system we have. But other places don't have the luxury of a well developed HS system.

lampthelight wrote:I will go on record as saying that I am VERY OPPOSED to Junior hockey the way it is now, but I can see it being an ASSET to the development of players, if tweaked a little bit. I may or may not hear a lot of arguements on this, but I am very prepared to defend my position.

Here is how I would tweak it if I was the NCAA:

1. Players should NOT be allowed to leave HS early to play Juniors.
2. How you get to play Junior Hockey
.....a. Year following HS grad(with no Commitment)
.....b. Used as Redshirt year(with Commitment)
3. Max of 6 years from HS graduation to finish college hockey
.....a. Military
.....b. Medical Redshirt
.....c. Other

Now Explained:

1. It's simple, finish HS then move on. With the Elite leagues, technology, and "boreds" like this now, if your good enough, you'll be found. Still, players will always transfer schools, it's just going to happen. I don't agree with it, but it's a fact of life now.

2a. With no commitment to a college, players are free with no penalty to play in Junior Hockey for 1 year. After 1 year of Juniors, they must then enroll and ''WALK ON'' at the school they wish to play for(Commitment).

2b. After a player commits to a school, whether it be by walking on or accepting a scholarship, they will be allowed 1 more year of Junior hockey, at the expense of the players "REDSHIRT" year(Directly out of HS), or 1st year of eligibily(After 1 year of Juniors). During this year, they must be enrolled full time(12 credits) at committed instituion. These credits can be taken in any way, including CLEP testing. After the 2nd year out of HS, all development of players must be done by the college coaching staffs, or off-season camps.

3. 6 years after HS gradutaion a player will completely lose eligibility to play NCAA hockey.
Exceptions:
3a. Military Leave: Self Explanatory
3b. Medical Redshirt: Normal NCAA med. Redshirt rules apply.
3c. Players take any amount of years off (work/personal reasons/whatever the case may be) after HS( as long as they are not violating NCAA eligibilty rules), then decide to come and try to play.

In this theory, a player can be ANY age playing college hockey. However, it should bring the average age down across college hockey, and put more emphasis on the schooling aspect. Which, according to the NCAA, is the most important thing. After all, they are called STUDENT-athletes, not ATHLETES-students.

Questions? Thoughts? Comments?

This is a good topic to debate, one that SHOULD leave, players, coaches, teams out of it.

I'm glad you are very prepared to defend your position. It is ridiculous to the absurd power.

Point #1 - players should not be able to leave HS to play Juniors - I'm not sure I understand. What does one's education have to do with hockey? You cannot mandate that a kid stay in school once they are 16. To my knowledge at least, anywhere in the country.

There is a bit of a battle being waged within American hockey. Some advocate Junior hockey and others feel youth extended up to U18 Midgets is superior. So my son (according to you, which is really irrelevant because it can never happen) can go play for Russell Stover or PF Chang's and that's okay, but he can't play in the NAHL or USHL. I'm really unclear here...who is going to enforce this? USA Hockey? The NCAA? 50 state Boards of Education? I'm lost.

It is no business of the NCAA where my son or anyone else plays their hockey. Period. They can regulate eligibility based on college enrollment, academic merit, or amateurism. They cannot and will never be able to dictate where kids play their youth sports, hockey or otherwise.

If your (sic) good enough, you'll be found

How? You've just said many kids have nowhere to play.

Explain away. Your idea makes no sense.

[/b]

Matt Niskanen never left and he seems to have developed quite nicley.
His team made it to state - Virginia's only trip ever.

How will Sachetti do next year? Is he really developing that much more?
I wonder how Hansen will do next year? I guess we shall see.

It seems Patrick White is going ok, and developed quite nicely in HS, making the finals at the X twice as well.

How is Stampher (?sp) from Hibbing doing in major juniors in Canada? Are we guaranteed to see him in the NHL in 3-5 years now?

Everyone must make up their own minds, but juniors will not guarantee success and development. Not everyone at Ann Arbor is going to make the big show, or even big time college hockey for that matter.

Sagar made a good call. It is his team and his program, and there are several risks in letting him come to practice.

Rochester kids have had a mixed review on leaving. Some did well - see Mark Stuart. Others have struggled. Some were supposed to leave or they had no chance at the WCHA - see both Canzanellos and Scott Thauwald. All three suited up as true freshman out of the Big Nine conference.

If you are good enough, you will be discovered and be given a chance.

Goldy is right about Lucia. He is using double-speak as it suits him. He cries about Okposo (and others) being lured to the next level (for money mind you), yet tells kids they need to leave to make it. All Mankato, St. Cloud, and UMD have to do to continue to be better than the Gophers is keep telling the elite HS kids they can come and play right away. What would you do if you were that kid? Go play in St. Cloud from day one or grind it out in the USHL for 1-2 years and maybe become a Gopher?

SEMinnHockeyNut wrote:All Mankato, St. Cloud, and UMD have to do to continue to be better than the Gophers is keep telling the elite HS kids they can come and play right away. What would you do if you were that kid? Go play in St. Cloud from day one or grind it out in the USHL for 1-2 years and maybe become a Gopher?

Just a piece of advice.... you may want to take a look at the facts before you go on a rant. Chances are you won't make yourself look bad then.

Because if you managed to take the time to look, you'd see Mankato, SCSU, and UMD use junior hockey leagues just as much as the Gophers do. Maybe even more.

Go to Heisenberg's recruiting site and you'll see it with your own two eyes. Virtually all of the recruits from the three teams you mentioned are playing (or will be playing) junior hockey before they come to college.

While your analysis was an "F" on that point, you get an "A" for effort when it comes to hating.

PS - Your point about telling kids to leave early is woefully inaccurate as well. I'd suggest asking some Gopher player parents who have kids who played junior hockey if they were "told" to leave. You'd find your commentary isn't backed up with reality.