HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Just saw it....

If I read it correctly, it is his NLI so he will be forgoing juniors next year.

PC Tourney Boyz (@PCTourneyBoyz)
"BREAKING NEWS: @rydesdono has signed his NLI to play hockey at the University of Wisconsin. Crazy what going on our podcast will do for a person. @FollowThePuck @YouthHockeyHub @dsryan16 @KarlEastHockey"
1:41 PM - 18 Feb 2019
https://twitter.com/PCTourneyBoyz/statu ... 4171481089

Duluth East Hockey (@Houndsupdates)
"Congrats to Hounds captain @rydesdono on his commitment to Wisconsin! A bright future awaits this kid!"
4:17 PM - 18 Feb 2019
https://twitter.com/Houndsupdates/statu ... 6839061504

Ryder Donovan (@rydesdono)
https://twitter.com/rydesdono

"Wisconsin Badgers add speedy center Ryder Donovan to 2019-20 freshman class"
TODD D. MILEWSKI tmilewski@madison.com 3 hrs ago
https://madison.com/wsj/sports/college/ ... 22462.html

Elite Prospects profile:
https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/3 ... er-donovan

Congrats to Ryder. It was only a matter of time for a player of his caliber, but it has to be a relief to have everything settled. That's the second Hound to the Badgers in the past two seasons now, along with LaMaster. And Madison is a little more fun than Grand Forks.

Any surprise that RD appears to be coming in right away? Obviously he has the physical talent, but I wonder if a year in the USHL would help his long term development. Though pairing RD with a decent scorer would almost certainly improve his production again. In any case, I’m glad that he found a great landing spot. I was a bit worried after the somewhat down season.

A sincere congratulations to this 218, Duluth Greyhound puckster. Mad Town is probably the best place to play D1 outside of 218 UMD D1 hockey. All the best!

Signing a NLI doesn't mean he will go in this fall. WI has five forwards (three USDT, a college transfer and the leading scorer in the AJHL) who have signed NLI. The three USDT and college transfer will are pretty much a sure thing to be in Mad-town this fall. Some of these will be one and dones in college. It may be beneficial for Ryder to wait a year. I think how Ryder does in his month of playing USHL after the high school season will determine if he goes directly to WI. An aside, with verbal commits, on paper, WI has over 25 forwards scheduled for 2020-2021 season. We know how this will play out..SAD! Early commits are worth as much as Twins relief pitchers with ERA's over 5.0. Kids, please wait at least to your senior year to commit, you will have a better understanding of the landscape that awaits you. GB

GoldenBear wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:49 am Signing a NLI doesn't mean he will go in this fall. WI has five forwards (three USDT, a college transfer and the leading scorer in the AJHL) who have signed NLI. The three USDT and college transfer will are pretty much a sure thing to be in Mad-town this fall. Some of these will be one and dones in college. It may be beneficial for Ryder to wait a year. I think how Ryder does in his month of playing USHL after the high school season will determine if he goes directly to WI. An aside, with verbal commits, on paper, WI has over 25 forwards scheduled for 2020-2021 season. We know how this will play out..SAD! Early commits are worth as much as Twins relief pitchers with ERA's over 5.0. GB

If a signed recruit delays himself, the NLI remains valid. If a school delays the recruit, the NLI is void.

If Ryder plays USHL next season, it was his choice. If he wants to be on campus, he will be.

If a signed recruit delays himself, the NLI remains valid. If a school delays the recruit, the NLI is void.

If Ryder plays USHL next season, it was his choice. If he wants to be on campus, he will be


Correct.

GoldenBear wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:49 am Kids, please wait at least to your senior year to commit, you will have a better understanding of the landscape that awaits you. GB

Good advice

O-townClown wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:17 am

GoldenBear wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:49 am Kids, please wait at least to your senior year to commit, you will have a better understanding of the landscape that awaits you. GB

Good advice

And play at least a year of juniors.

northwoods oldtimer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:31 am

O-townClown wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:17 am

GoldenBear wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:49 am Kids, please wait at least to your senior year to commit, you will have a better understanding of the landscape that awaits you. GB

Good advice

And play at least a year of juniors.

I am not saying to disregard these statements, as I agree 100% Juniors then college, and only commit during your senior year or even when you are in Juniors.

But look at CM. He never played Juniors, and only 1 year at the U before he went to Buffalo. Now, look at how he is doing. Every kid with high hopes wants to be the next CM, and some kids may only have the opportunity to commit while they are a step ahead of the rest. If you look at pro players who hate 1-year deals, some kids and parents may see the same thing. You risk possibly losing out on college if you wait to commit. You may get injured, like Donovans old, and soon to be new (again) teammate Luke Lamaster. Numerous knee injuries have sidelined him down in Janesville/Tri-City. If a kid waits until senior year to commit, and he gets injured, the possibility he may not get the chance to move on comes into play.

I believe the new NCAA rules should help mitigate this whole young recruitment atmosphere, and in my opinion, kids are dumb to commit to a school that commits more than they can dress for the following season. Why put yourself in a position to lose your spot and not have anything left to go towards besides club hockey, or trying to walk on elsewhere. If you age out of juniors, show up to the U and then get told, we have too many guys sorry, what are you going to do?

my 2 cents. Commit when you know you have a spot no matter what, and develop as much as you can.

The Exiled One wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:54 am

GoldenBear wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:49 am Signing a NLI doesn't mean he will go in this fall. WI has five forwards (three USDT, a college transfer and the leading scorer in the AJHL) who have signed NLI. The three USDT and college transfer will are pretty much a sure thing to be in Mad-town this fall. Some of these will be one and dones in college. It may be beneficial for Ryder to wait a year. I think how Ryder does in his month of playing USHL after the high school season will determine if he goes directly to WI. An aside, with verbal commits, on paper, WI has over 25 forwards scheduled for 2020-2021 season. We know how this will play out..SAD! Early commits are worth as much as Twins relief pitchers with ERA's over 5.0. GB

If a signed recruit delays himself, the NLI remains valid. If a school delays the recruit, the NLI is void.

If Ryder plays USHL next season, it was his choice. If he wants to be on campus, he will be.

It’s not that cut & dried (which you darn well know) I can think of several players who signed their NLI, then were subsequently encouraged by the coaches to play another year in the USHL, what’s the player going to do? Insist he come in ? And be a healthy scratch all year...

That guy for that thing wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:42 am

northwoods oldtimer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:31 am

O-townClown wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:17 am

Good advice

And play at least a year of juniors.

I am not saying to disregard these statements, as I agree 100% Juniors then college, and only commit during your senior year or even when you are in Juniors.

But look at CM. He never played Juniors, and only 1 year at the U before he went to Buffalo. Now, look at how he is doing. Every kid with high hopes wants to be the next CM, and some kids may only have the opportunity to commit while they are a step ahead of the rest. If you look at pro players who hate 1-year deals, some kids and parents may see the same thing. You risk possibly losing out on college if you wait to commit. You may get injured, like Donovans old, and soon to be new (again) teammate Luke Lamaster. Numerous knee injuries have sidelined him down in Janesville/Tri-City. If a kid waits until senior year to commit, and he gets injured, the possibility he may not get the chance to move on comes into play.

I believe the new NCAA rules should help mitigate this whole young recruitment atmosphere, and in my opinion, kids are dumb to commit to a school that commits more than they can dress for the following season. Why put yourself in a position to lose your spot and not have anything left to go towards besides club hockey, or trying to walk on elsewhere. If you age out of juniors, show up to the U and then get told, we have too many guys sorry, what are you going to do?

my 2 cents. Commit when you know you have a spot no matter what, and develop as much as you can.

CM is the unique exception.

Ryder is a nice HS player and majority of kids would benefit by at least one year of junior. Best wishes to Ryder.

First of all congrats to Ryder (since this is the topic)

Personally I hope the following

1. The NCAA stops coaches and kids from talking before the kids junior year (then cap the number of verbals a college could have until it becomes a LOI).
2. The NCAA lowers the maximum age to enter as a freshman to 20 years old

What makes the state of hockey so good is we get to follow kids thru association, thru high school, then college then even pros (like we all have with CM). 20-30 years ago, the USHL was a place many kids went who couldn't get a D-1 offer. Now it's a place almost all kids go after high school to get ready for college hockey. I personally don't want to see college hockey get "older" . I have zero desire to watch a bunch of 21-23 year old's play at the collegiate level. It seems, the older the team, the more "systems" get implemented and in my opinion, the more boring the product gets.

I also don't want to "lose track" of these high school kids. Lets face it, most of us do not follow the USHL unless we have a kid or neighbor kid on the team. So to take a high profile high school kid and ship him off to the USHL for two years most of us will lose track or stop following that kid altogether

For me I think college hockey is on dangerous grounds the older and older they get. Their product will start to mirror that of the NHL. Personally I like both college and pro hockey but I like both leagues for different reasons. But if the products start to look, feel and smell the same, that won't be good for either of them.

Just for the record... Mittelstadt did play juniors at Green Bay. Just not a full time schedule.

hockey59 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:15 amIt’s not that cut & dried (which you darn well know) I can think of several players who signed their NLI, then were subsequently encouraged by the coaches to play another year in the USHL, what’s the player going to do? Insist he come in ? And be a healthy scratch all year...

It is and it isn’t. Some kids in that situation take the opportunity to decommit and find a better opportunity. Others decide their best bet is to stick with it. In most cases, the “year of juniors” is negotiated at the time of the verbal commitment, which technically makes it the recruit’s decision. So if RD plays juniors, it was almost certainly agreed to before he put pen to paper.

Here is the question I have. Why would a player agree to spend a year in Juniors and then put pen to paper committing to a school that wants him to do that? The way I see it, that school can keep recruiting and upgrading your position group, defer you off one year of Juniors, two years of Juniors, etc. and could eventually break you off and then you are left with nothing or scrambling, at best. In my mind, if I am signing on the dotted line the school is bringing me in next season to play, not sit, or I am not signing and keeping my recruitment options open. Why commit to a school that is not going to commit to me? Seems there is a lot of power that lies in the hands of the schools right now and the student-athletes are really left swaying in the wind.

The simple answer is supply & demand. There are way too many quality players for way too few NCAA D1 teams right now. If a player doesn't like the terms the school is offering, fine, some other player will do it. There needs to be a huge expansion in NCAA hockey because player supply exceeds player demand, until then, not much is going to change.

Not to completely derail the thread, congrats on committing to Wisconsin.

SCBlueLiner wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:26 am Here is the question I have. Why would a player agree to spend a year in Juniors and then put pen to paper committing to a school that wants him to do that? The way I see it, that school can keep recruiting and upgrading your position group, defer you off one year of Juniors, two years of Juniors, etc. and could eventually break you off and then you are left with nothing or scrambling, at best. In my mind, if I am signing on the dotted line the school is bringing me in next season to play, not sit, or I am not signing and keeping my recruitment options open. Why commit to a school that is not going to commit to me? Seems there is a lot of power that lies in the hands of the schools right now and the student-athletes are really left swaying in the wind.

The simple answer is supply & demand. There are way too many quality players for way too few NCAA D1 teams right now. If a player doesn't like the terms the school is offering, fine, some other player will do it. There needs to be a huge expansion in NCAA hockey because player supply exceeds player demand, until then, not much is going to change.

Not to completely derail the thread, congrats on committing to Wisconsin.

To continue the derailment, Arizona State is being watched by the West Coast Schools pretty heavily, and they are succeeding. I wouldn't be surprised if in 5-10 years the PAC-12 and BIG-12 will be popping up schools, as well as a growth in the BIG10. I think Illinois is looking at adding hockey here soon. There was an interesting clip during Hockey Day in America that was about Arizona State, and one of the kids made the joke about who wouldn't want to play college hockey in warm weather when their friends are having to deal with blizzards.

SCBlueLiner wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:26 am Here is the question I have. Why would a player agree to spend a year in Juniors and then put pen to paper committing to a school that wants him to do that? The way I see it, that school can keep recruiting and upgrading your position group, defer you off one year of Juniors, two years of Juniors, etc. and could eventually break you off and then you are left with nothing or scrambling, at best. In my mind, if I am signing on the dotted line the school is bringing me in next season to play, not sit, or I am not signing and keeping my recruitment options open. Why commit to a school that is not going to commit to me? Seems there is a lot of power that lies in the hands of the schools right now and the student-athletes are really left swaying in the wind.

The simple answer is supply & demand. There are way too many quality players for way too few NCAA D1 teams right now. If a player doesn't like the terms the school is offering, fine, some other player will do it. There needs to be a huge expansion in NCAA hockey because player supply exceeds player demand, until then, not much is going to change.

Not to completely derail the thread, congrats on committing to Wisconsin.

I agree with you about the supply and demand issue but not necessarily what the best solution it is. What created the glut of supply? I would argue that the use of juniors has expanded the age range of the players and therefore expanded the supply. Players that couldn't compete at 18-22 can compete at 20-24 after a couple extra years of development. If we just increase the number of college teams it is likely that the number of junior teams will just increase as well to match the demand from the college teams. An age cap of 22-23, however would narrow the pool of players or reduce the supply. I think this would impose sort of a natural selection on the process. There are only so many high end kids in an age range. If you increase the teams they can just keep increasing the junior teams and the number of older kids available. An age cap would make the high end 18 year old that wants to start right away far more valuable, because they wouldn't have to compete with 20-21 years that have had longer to develop. There is some merit to your point of increasing the teams as well. I just think this does a better job of solving the problem. Plus you don't have to convince more schools that hockey would be economically viable.

northwoods oldtimer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:37 pm

That guy for that thing wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:42 am

northwoods oldtimer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:31 am

And play at least a year of juniors.

I am not saying to disregard these statements, as I agree 100% Juniors then college, and only commit during your senior year or even when you are in Juniors.

But look at CM. He never played Juniors, and only 1 year at the U before he went to Buffalo. Now, look at how he is doing. Every kid with high hopes wants to be the next CM, and some kids may only have the opportunity to commit while they are a step ahead of the rest. If you look at pro players who hate 1-year deals, some kids and parents may see the same thing. You risk possibly losing out on college if you wait to commit. You may get injured, like Donovans old, and soon to be new (again) teammate Luke Lamaster. Numerous knee injuries have sidelined him down in Janesville/Tri-City. If a kid waits until senior year to commit, and he gets injured, the possibility he may not get the chance to move on comes into play.

I believe the new NCAA rules should help mitigate this whole young recruitment atmosphere, and in my opinion, kids are dumb to commit to a school that commits more than they can dress for the following season. Why put yourself in a position to lose your spot and not have anything left to go towards besides club hockey, or trying to walk on elsewhere. If you age out of juniors, show up to the U and then get told, we have too many guys sorry, what are you going to do?

my 2 cents. Commit when you know you have a spot no matter what, and develop as much as you can.

CM is the unique exception.

Ryder is a nice HS player and majority of kids would benefit by at least one year of junior. Best wishes to Ryder.

CM - as talented as they come out of MN and sky is the limit on his future, however, I would argue he could have used another year at the U. Or, more simply put another year of college exp. But understanding the coaching change, a middling team in transition and the contract offer in front of him - I/we get it. But? 19 pts and a -7 in 60 games? Meh. Granted, its only year one for him...but again WHAT IS THE RUSH?

Just ask Brinkman. Talk about a player with a high ceiling, but Im lost on the need to RUSH through HS straight to the U. Tough transition year for him. I do agree that he was developing bad habits at HS level as it seemed he wasn't challenged much but a year of juniors, FT would have served him well. His toughest games last year were vs. Tonka and DE obviously. Huge leap for an 18 yr playing 22, 23 and 24 yr olds. SLOW DOWN. ENJOY your youth. We will see if this 'acceleration plan' actually ends up lowering his '19 draft status.

7TIMECHAMPS wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:02 pmWhat created the glut of supply? I would argue that the use of juniors has expanded the age range of the players and therefore expanded the supply.

A much bigger issue in my eyes is the expansion of hockey into most of the country. When states are turning out 5 Div I players each year those are coming out of the more traditional markets.

Didn’t read back on this whole thread, so my point may already have been covered . That minimum NHL salary is awfully tempting when offered —whether you are optimally ready or not

As far as CM , just compare his career path and first NHL year to Brock B, but then again he’s got an additional year of multi six digits money after taxes in the bank , and disability insurance in force

O-townClown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:41 pm

7TIMECHAMPS wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:02 pmWhat created the glut of supply? I would argue that the use of juniors has expanded the age range of the players and therefore expanded the supply.

A much bigger issue in my eyes is the expansion of hockey into most of the country. When states are turning out 5 Div I players each year those are coming out of the more traditional markets.

I think that the value of college hockey is the problem. For the mid-west, and the east coast, hockey is valued from youth all the way up, but in other parts of the country, South West and West Coast USA, the value of hockey for colleges isn't there yet. Once those schools start to value hockey as the midwest does, then more schools will start programs. That also drags along youth interest as well, and if the country starts to value hockey more, MN will not have quite the same grasp on college recruits as it does now. More kids playing means the average skill level will rise and will dilute our recruitment levels. It's a slippery slope in my mind, as we want hockey to grow across the country so we can gain more recognition for what we are great at, it opens the door for great hockey players to come out of other markets and take our kid's spots on college and junior teams.

That guy for that thing wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:02 pm It's a slippery slope in my mind, as we want hockey to grow across the country so we can gain more recognition for what we are great at, it opens the door for great hockey players to come out of other markets and take our kid's spots on college and junior teams.