In a message dated 1/24/99 6:02:32 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
 
<< 1. A player does NOT have to stay in junior hockey until he's 20 to be
prepared to make an impact in college (witness: Gionta/Leopold--and many
more).  Depending on the program he is with and the player's dedication
to improve,  he can go right out of high school and be an impact
player.  And there are players who are late bloomers--but every
20-year-old frosh is not that.>>
 
This comment seems to contradict itself wildly. Either that or you
misunderstood most of the "20 year old freshman are ok" argument. Nobody on
this thread said that players should ALWAYS go juniors...it should just always
be a viable option.
 
<<<2. There are some excellent junior programs,  and some poor ones (same
as college).  Keep in mind,  the goal at the junior level--and the
college level (on the ice) is supposed to be player DEVELOPMENT--not
simply winning.  One of the problems in US junior right now is that many
good young players join a team and sit on the bench for a year--because
owners want the team to win NOW(thus deterring development at a CRITICAL
time).  And at both levels,  the teams that suffer with younger,
more-talented players,  tend to have the most success over the long
haul.>>>
 
If there is even a 17 year old player that can't even crack a 20 player lineup
in junior then he probably should still be in Midgets. If he's 18+ he won't do
any D1 team any good anyway....he should be tier II preparing himself to play
in recreational leagues.
 
 
<<3.  If you go to 16 teams in the NCAA tourney--why not go to 24, 48,
etc.? Let the influx of new leagues and programs catch up in talent and
competitiveness before making that move.  BUT,  maybe plan a 16-team
tourney for 3-4 years down the line (one recruiting cycle) and let
everyone know it's coming.  Just a thought from someone who participated
in seven NCAA tournaments.>>
 
I hope that first line was very toungue in cheek. I really don't care what
they do though.
 
<<4.  Many at both the junior and college levels need to look,  again,  at
the commitment to developing players.  In college,  there is also the
academic mission,  and this separates it from "Major" junior,  but major
A is still better at developing players because it will take a top
16-year-old and play that kid every night.>>
 
I have seen many "top 16 year olds" ride the pine more than half the season in
Major Junior. Most memorable for me are Ty Jones and Mark Bell...both #1 picks
in their 18 birth year. This statement doesn't give itself any breathing room
for a kid that practices his ass off 100 times a year (not counting summer
camps and tourneys) and plays 20%  games anywhere...watching and learning the
rest of the year.
 
IMHO,
Randy
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.