tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6677867857097423502.post5546105459293714654..comments2023-10-20T04:45:00.350-06:00Comments on Coming Down the Pipe!: When Commitments Don't Mean SquatGuy Flaminghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03178739486819659419noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6677867857097423502.post-36816310088276942532009-02-20T11:49:00.000-07:002009-02-20T11:49:00.000-07:00Guy,You followed up a post of mine on the TPS blog...Guy,<BR/><BR/>You followed up a post of mine on the TPS blog with your posting called "When NCAA Commitments mean squat". I read the entry as well as all of the comments.<BR/><BR/>First off, Ethan Werek (sp?) never submitted an NLI to BU, so it was a verbal commitment.<BR/><BR/>Second, the issue is a lot more complicated than most people think. Many Canadians, especially those who aren't familiar with how the NCAA recruiting process works, tends to simplify the issue and in turn do not fully understand the entire scope of the problem. So I'll try and explain it to you as briefly as I possibly can.<BR/><BR/>The biggest issues here from the NCAA's perspective are:<BR/><BR/>1) The NCAA rule regarding not allowing coaches to talk to potential recruits BEFORE the summer following their sophomore year in high school. This puts them at a huge disadvantage to the CHL because the CHL teams can talk to these same players before then. I wrote about this in the story that I did for Future Considerations last year that focused on the number of collegians leaving the NCAA ranks for the CHL.<BR/><BR/>2) The developmental leagues with HS-aged kids, especially those who play for some of the nation's top Midget (AAA) Major programs, that are experiencing continually rising losses to the CHL BEFORE the kids have an opportunity to explore the college (NCAA) option.<BR/><BR/>Since you're probably familiar with reason #1, I'll focus on reason #2 here.<BR/><BR/>Since coming on board with Hockey's Future many moons ago, I've had the opportunity to speak with coaches at virtually every level of developmental hockey here in the US that is below the collegiate level. I've spoken with coaches from the NTDP, the USHL, the NAHL, the New England preps, the MN HS Class A/AA league (which I'm doing more coverage of this year for HF), and the Midget (AAA) Majors.<BR/><BR/>While every coach that I've spoken with in all of the aforementioned leagues have varying opinions on a player's development, one common theme that I've heard over and over from virtually all of them is the pressure that these kids are put under to make crucial decisions that could effect their futures, not only in hockey but also in life after hockey, at such a young age.<BR/><BR/>When I did the 2-part HF story on the growth of youth hockey here in California back in November called "California: the Golden State of Hockey", several of the Midget Major coaches that I spoke with for the story expressed great concern about the kids (and I'll use their words here) "being forced to make critical hockey decisions at such a young age".<BR/><BR/>Often times, these kids do not get the opportunity to even explore the NCAA option BEFORE being approached by the WHL because they (WHL) want<BR/>decisions as quickly as possible. And according to these coaches, the kids barely have enough time to speak with their parents about all of the options that are available to them before the WHL comes calling again. But even more alarming to these coaches is the fact that not only does the WHL want quick commitments, they also want these kids out of Midget Major as quickly as possible too, regardless if they are ready for the WHL or not. These coaches feel that the WHL are trying to rush these kids' development and are not looking at the potential long-term/down-the-road consequences in doing so. Furthermore, these coaches also feel that these kids would be better served spending an<BR/>extra year in Midget Major to get more and/or quality ice time, rather than seeing spot duty in the WHL, as was the case with Everett's Tyler Parker when he first arrived in the Dub at 16.<BR/><BR/>One selling point that the WHL has utilized in their recruiting efforts that has proven to be successful for them in recent years is the educational package that they offer, which is quite attractive, but also not without some strings attached. While many of the NCAA media do not understand (nor care to in some cases) how the CHL educational packages work, I actually wanted to be and was educated (no pun intended) on it from my direct talks with WHL personnel. I think what people on BOTH sides of the issue here have to<BR/>understand is that what the WHL (and I would assume this also applies to the other CHL leagues as well) has to offer as far as educational package is concerned is NOT the same as what the NCAA offers. Both have their pluses and minuses.<BR/><BR/>Now taking this a step further and in reply to something that you mentioned in giving the CHL a try and then opt for the NCAA route if<BR/>it doesn't work out and if it were possible, I would be in total agreement with you except that as I mentioned before, many of these kids aren't even given sufficient time to explore all of their options<BR/>first. Why not allow the player and his family explore ALL of their options BEFORE coming to a decision? I'm not saying that this will be the case with all players. Some players, such as Rhett Rakshani of the University of Denver never had any intention of ever going the CHL route to begin<BR/>with. Conversely, a player like Jonathon Blum briefly thought about going the NCAA route but was pretty much set on going to the Dub anyway. And from my one-on-one discussions with both of them, I can honestly say that both are very, very happy with the decisions that they made.<BR/><BR/>I've said this before and I'll say it again, I don't really care which route a player takes as long as he and his family are happy with the decision that they and THEY ALONE made, and are willing to live with. I personally do not feel that players should be pressured to fit into some sort of quick time line for their decisions. This is a decision that will have a tremendous effect on their lives and IMO the decision to take either route shouldn't be made hastily.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6677867857097423502.post-18175937168867282009-02-18T13:43:00.000-07:002009-02-18T13:43:00.000-07:00The following comment was emailed to me by someone...The following comment was emailed to me by someone who wishes to remain anonymous... and I altered the blog to prevent comments from "anonymous" because 98% of the time they come from people with little to offer outside of grief or profanity.<BR/><BR/>This person was different so I <I>will</I> post what "H.C." had to say:<BR/><BR/><I>“Who said it was a surprise? What I said is that it is not in the best interests of the majority of 16's that they play Junior (either Major Junior or Junior A). Used to be fairly rare that a 16 played in the 'dub. I know of several who have played in the last few years that I speculate would have developed as well, if not better, playing another year of Midget. <BR/><BR/>You whine about the NCAA rules not letting a 15 or 16 year old kid try playing in the CHL before making a decision about their future. Why is there such pressure from the CHL teams to sign at such a young age? Why shouldn't the CHL wait until kids are more mature and have a better understanding of what they might like to gain from hockey? What is the CHL afraid of? <BR/><BR/>As I recall, it was the CHL that "forced" Hockey Canada to remove the rule it was intending to implement a few years ago that would have eliminated most 16 year olds from playing Junior. The rule that would have essentially made the Junior leagues for kids from 17 to 20; not 16 to 20. Remember that? That rule would have helped far more kids that it would have hindered, IMO."</I><BR/><BR/>Some good stuff there to consider!Guy Flaminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03178739486819659419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6677867857097423502.post-75664534533500878502009-02-17T23:45:00.000-07:002009-02-17T23:45:00.000-07:00Well 'Anonymous', if that IS your real name...The ...Well 'Anonymous', if that IS your real name...<BR/><BR/>The CHL is a league for 16-20 year olds so <I>obviously,</I> there will be 16 year olds playing in it. <BR/><BR/>Big shocker there.Guy Flaminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03178739486819659419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6677867857097423502.post-59727403827714691612009-02-17T22:26:00.000-07:002009-02-17T22:26:00.000-07:00What is ridiculous is the CHL's "need" to bring in...What is ridiculous is the CHL's "need" to bring in 16-year-old players - often 3 per team each year! You can't tell me that most of the 16-year-olds in the CHL wouldn't benefit by playing another year of Midget, both in terms of maturity and education. So why the big hurry to sign and play them so young? So they have no alternative but to play in the CHL? It sure seems that way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6677867857097423502.post-52121439197293409002009-02-17T10:00:00.000-07:002009-02-17T10:00:00.000-07:00Technically there is no reason why there can't...Technically there is no reason why there can't be players in Jr A who have signed NHL contracts too though. It's not likely that there will be one anytime soon but if it DID happen, would the NCAA then decide that Canadian Jr A is now professional and all its players are off-limits to the NCAA? I doubt it.<BR/><BR/>There's also lots of players in Jr A who have played in the CHL and are therefore considered pros by the NCAA. So the kids in Jr A are already playing with and against "pros" in the form of ex-CHLers. And the NCAA does allow players to have played exhibition games against CIS teams, which are largely composed of former CHL "pros". Example would be the USHL vs QMJHL exhibitions from two years ago. Those USHL players didn't lose their NCAA eligibility despite having played against QMJHL "pros".<BR/><BR/>The whole WHL="pro"/Jr A = not pro schtick is just a convenient way for the NCAA to try and preserve some form of pipeline of Canadian players. They know that if they allowed kids to play major junior at 16 or 17 and then go to the NCAA, that they would lose out on almost every single top NHL prospect as those players would almost all choose to stay and finish their careers in junior. The only players going to the NCAA at 18 would be the average CHLers, the late bloomers, and the kids who aren't fixated on hockey as a career and want an education.<BR/><BR/>I think both junior and NCAA are great options for players but these two leagues have to find a way to get along. It's in the best interests of the players that the leagues be able to peacefully co-exist instead of this stupid tug-of-war over 15 & 16 year olds that we have now.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05668218392221086476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6677867857097423502.post-64586331163653165912009-02-17T02:10:00.000-07:002009-02-17T02:10:00.000-07:00Good point Jeff except it's not the older CHL kids...Good point Jeff except it's not the older CHL kids that I think should be able to leave but the younger ones if it's clear that their Major junior choice is not working out for them. <BR/><BR/>What if you capped it so that 18 and under could still retain their NCAA eligibility plus you upped the CHL limit on 20-year-olds to 4 or even 5 to help compensate.<BR/><BR/>It just seems silly to me that the NCAA expects a 15-year-old to know what and where he wants to be when he's 19.<BR/><BR/>There has to be some sort of middle ground doesn't there? Maybe it's not MY ideas that are plausible but there has to be something.Guy Flaminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03178739486819659419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6677867857097423502.post-29337490352575675662009-02-16T15:49:00.000-07:002009-02-16T15:49:00.000-07:001. I think the NCAA considers the WHL a Pro league...1. I think the NCAA considers the WHL a Pro league because there are players in the league who have signed pro contracts. Thus playing against them suggests you are playing against professionals.<BR/>2. I too used to think it would be great if 19 and 20 years olds would be allowed to leave the WHL to play in the NCAA but imagine the constant recruting by NCAA teams. Every year WHL teams would have no idea who would be returning to their club. Right now they know if the player plays a game then he is in the league for good.<BR/>http://jeffhollick.blogspot.com/Jeff Hollickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17420696429336021599noreply@blogger.com