> In a more broad vein,  and from a developmental aspect,  are we adding
> far too many "Division I" teams,  without acutally having the "Division
> I" players?  I think the answer is yes.  We need to develop MORE talent
> in the US to meet this demand before the caliber of the game plummets
> (it's not where it was in the mid-80s to early-90s) further and more
> scouts, agents and pro folks are telling kids that the best competitive
> opportunities aren't in college anymore (some are already saying that).
 
Adam has made a very good point in his discussion of this already, but let
me add another point of view.
 
I would argue that except for the ultra blue chippers, the US *is* producing
more "D-I players."  For many years, hockey has grown *a lot* within the US at
every level *except* for college.  I've heard many veteran observers note that
today's third and fourth liners are superior to those of year's past.  And
considering the reduction of scholarships available in hockey, there are
kids today who are walking on or getting 2-for-4 deals (pay two years, get
two years on scholarship) who would have gotten full rides back in the days
of teams giving 24 and then 20 scholarships.  (The limit for the last 5-6
years has been 18.)
 
What has dropped off is the collegiate game's ability to attract the blue
chippers.  (Adam had an excellent "Around the Rinks" show on that topic a
year and a half ago.)  And you can probably attribute much of that to the
significant expansion of major junior leagues and their resulting push for
players south of the border.
 
But while retaining the blue chippers *is* a problem, the number of US second-
tier and third-tier players has definitely increased to the point of being
able to support D-I expansion.
 
Dave
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.