HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Cadets16 wrote:http://letsplayhockey.com/online-editio ... ockey.html

Defensive Zone wrote:

Cadets16 wrote:http://letsplayhockey.com/online-editio ... ockey.html

This article should be a prerequisite for all high school parents and players to read. Nice job Vannelli.

As a great man once said, "Listen, man. You're my friend, and I know you care about me. And I know you disapprove, and I respect that. But there are some things that I have to do that you don't understand. You understand literature, movies, wine... but you don't understand my plight." 'Nuff said.

Greg Vannelli wrote:For example, in our program during that time period, we have had 20 players who I would qualify as Division I prospects. We lost seven players to early departure as well as 13 additional players who had the option of early departure, but declined. When I tracked the outcome of all 20 players, I found that the seven who left early did play Division I hockey. However, the 13 others who stayed backed also played Division I hockey. When I look at their college careers, there is no indication that those who stayed back had any less impact than those who left early....

Yes, the USHL is overall a higher level of competition, but if you expose highly talented players to a reasonable level of competition like the MSHSL, I believe that in a short time the talented high school players will catch up.

The Exiled One wrote:

Greg Vannelli wrote:For example, in our program during that time period, we have had 20 players who I would qualify as Division I prospects. We lost seven players to early departure as well as 13 additional players who had the option of early departure, but declined. When I tracked the outcome of all 20 players, I found that the seven who left early did play Division I hockey. However, the 13 others who stayed backed also played Division I hockey. When I look at their college careers, there is no indication that those who stayed back had any less impact than those who left early....

Yes, the USHL is overall a higher level of competition, but if you expose highly talented players to a reasonable level of competition like the MSHSL, I believe that in a short time the talented high school players will catch up.

So what he's saying is, all the talented HS players have the opportunity to reach their full potential whether they leave early or not. Was that ever in doubt? I can't find anybody who has argued otherwise. The reason these kids leave early is TIMING. They want to get to their full potential as soon as they can. It's difficult to begrudge them that.

D1 coaches are increasingly extending scholarship offers with the understanding that the recruit will play junior hockey. Whether the recruit plays juniors while still in HS or after graduation is largely irrelevant. As you can imagine, some kids will feel the need to get that taken care of sooner rather than later. How can anybody criticize them for that decision?

On the other hand, some kids will play juniors without a D1 scholarship offer in hand. IMHO, that's risky. In that circumstance I can agree with Vannelli's POV.

GoBigorGoHome wrote:Every family should consider the options and then make the choice they believe is best for their athlete and their situation. Hindsight is always 20/20 (unless you're totally delusional) and statistics can be spun to say whatever you want them to say. Let people make their own choices and don't try to tell anyone what's best for them. As a great man once said, "Listen, man. You're my friend, and I know you care about me. And I know you disapprove, and I respect that. But there are some things that I have to do that you don't understand. You understand literature, movies, wine... but you don't understand my plight." 'Nuff said.

Bonin2121 wrote:Why didn't he give his best player this speech? Brian Lee was an impact player in the NHL? The one player from his program that stayed back actually stayed back at another program, unless he's not talking about Lee? Didn't Justin Faulk play a year at STA? If so, he also left early for NTDP (after leaving for SSP).

Section 8 guy wrote:

Bonin2121 wrote:Why didn't he give his best player this speech? Brian Lee was an impact player in the NHL? The one player from his program that stayed back actually stayed back at another program, unless he's not talking about Lee? Didn't Justin Faulk play a year at STA? If so, he also left early for NTDP (after leaving for SSP).

Am I missing something here? You realize Brian Lee played in Moorhead and never played at STA, right?[/quot

Anders Lee not Brian Lee

Just Checking wrote:I think what he is saying is what is the rush? I think the two of you agree. But rushing it, leaving early, brings more peril into play. There is more to lose than to gain would be another way of phrasing it.

GoBigorGoHome wrote:Vannelli isn't right, nor is he wrong. He's just a man expressing an opinion and reaching a conclusion which happens to be incredibly self-serving. To view it as anything more than that is being extremely naive. People should make informed decisions based on individual circumstances and the consequences, good or bad, will be what they will be.

bauerman wrote:Go Big you may view this as incredibly self-serving on Vannelli's part, but you miss the point I think. And that is moving on is not always the right answer in fact very often it can be the wrong answer. I believe and I think this is the point that Vannelli is trying to make is the general pressure from ushl coaches or us development team reps is to move to them and where does that ultimately get the player to.I have thought this for a long time that if you play in a quality program ,play Elite League work with a top summer program are you really gaining anything in the long run by misssing one or two years of your high school career to play juniors?

The Exiled One wrote:

Just Checking wrote:I think what he is saying is what is the rush? I think the two of you agree. But rushing it, leaving early, brings more peril into play. There is more to lose than to gain would be another way of phrasing it.

Yes, but that works both ways. Another year shy of D1 is another year of potential career-ending injury. Once on campus, injury is rarely a reason to yank a scholarship.

bauerman wrote:apology accepted

Just Checking wrote:

The Exiled One wrote:

Just Checking wrote:I think what he is saying is what is the rush? I think the two of you agree. But rushing it, leaving early, brings more peril into play. There is more to lose than to gain would be another way of phrasing it.

Yes, but that works both ways. Another year shy of D1 is another year of potential career-ending injury. Once on campus, injury is rarely a reason to yank a scholarship.

There is that.

C-dad wrote:

bauerman wrote:apology accepted

Even as snarky as it was worded?