Gary Berge wrote:
[. . . ]
>>A few points.
 
> The idea that the juniors don't develop skills, at least hockey skills, is
> ludicrous.  The NHL is basically the graduate school of the juniors --
> there are more ex-WHL players in the NHL than there are ex-NCAA players,
> and the WHL is only one of three CHL leagues.  The skill development is
> very strong.<<
>
I agree with Joe LaCour's post.  An assertion that the juniors don't develop
skills AT ALL is ludicrous, but an assertion that juniors don't as good a
job of skill development as other "feeder" system is quite rational.  The
percentage of NHL "skill players" that come from the CHL is less than the
percentage of CHL players in the NHL, and a disproportionate number of
fourth liners, roster fillers, fighters, and goons came from the CHL.  In a
game-oriented system, as the CHL is, you learn game skills; and since the
game they're emulating is the NHL, they learn NHL game skills -- minimize
mistakes (which discourages taking chances), cautious defensive systems,
dump-and-chase, clutch and grab.
 
>>That school is not a priority is somewhat disingenous when we are
comparing this to the NCAA.  At most major NCAA D-I powers, school
responsbilities are as much of a joke as they are in the juniors.  The
perennial top ten are a business and a feeder system in their own right.<<
 
Fair 'nuf, though I think that the presence of the CHL and other junior
leagues, the European leagues, and the professional minor leagues makes it
less of a joke and a feeder system than basketball and football.  With the
junior leagues, you don't even have to pretend to go to school, and in the
professional minor leagues, you can actually get paid.  And there ARE
players who seize the opportunity to get a good education, even if the have
to deal with the demands of their sport.  Not to say he's either the
exception or the rule, but I believe that the Hobey Baker was won a few
years ago by a guy who was carrying a 3.8 or so in Chemical Engineering.
 
>>The NCAA rule change may be motivated by an attempt to erode the juniors
large talent advantage, but if so, is that all that laudable?  I would hope
the rule change is motivated more by issues of sense and fairness.  The
living stipend and billeting that junior players receive really doesn't do
much for them, and it shouldn't screw up their college eligibility.  After
all, there are plenty of collegians who were on special teams (national
underage teams, all star teams, etc), and the perks for being on those
squads are comparable in type if not extent).<<
 
I'd hope so too.  I suppose there could be some of both of the motives you
mention, but I don't see why the NCAA should worry that much about the
junior's talent advantage since they don't play them.
 
>>Generally speaking, this seems like a fair development.  I don't see it
resulting in any huge influx of talent, though there will be migratory
exceptions.  If the rule is written loosely enough, the NCAA may actually
lose talented players who choose to jump to the juniors to try to up their
draft position by playing a longer, tougher season, knowing they can
straggle back if it doesn't work out.<<
 
Great point.  Thanks for a thought provoking post.
 
Clay
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.