> From:         Clay Satow: The top level of amateur hockey in the US has two components: college
hockey and juniors.  Of these, only the college teams have a natural
constituency that consists of students, alumni, and others who for
whatever reason ("state pride" etc.) support that college team.  The
juniors  play high caliber hockey, but they really have no constituency
at least nothing resembling the community constituency that a junior
team in Canada might have.

Well, there is a third level of amateur hockey: high school. At least in Minnesota, there is so big as to not allow any junior hockey to survive (no USHL team in Minnesota except Rochester, and their demise has been repeatedly predicted). and what is called junior hockey in the US is nothing more than high school or prep school level of hockey. From junior hockey, every participant is hoping to go on to college hockey.

In the US, only baseball with its triple A to single A structure and business-community support can be compared to junior hockey in Canada. We are different countries with different weather and traditions. Canada has a national culture of hockey. In the US it is only a regional culture of hockey. I like the regionalism of amateur hockey in the US. I am also glad Nascar is only a regional sport (not my region, that is).

Nathan Hampton

> ----------
> From:         Clay Satow
> Reply To:     Clay Satow
> Sent:         Monday, January 7, 2002 9:27 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: World Juniors/NCAA
>
> The WJC in the Boston area was at several venues, including those
> mentioned, plus Matthews Arena (where Northeastern U plays their home
> games;  listed capacity 6000.)  The arena looked empty.  At Matthews
> I'd be surprised if there were 1000 there for any of the games except
> Canada/Finland.
>
> Part of the problem of lack of interest in the junior game is structure
> of amateur hockey.  In Canada, and every other country that I can think
> of, organized juniors are the top level of amateur hockey.
>
> The top level of amateur hockey in the US has two components: college
> hockey and juniors.  Of these, only the college teams have a natural
> constituency that consists of students, alumni, and others who for
> whatever reason ("state pride" etc.) support that college team.  The
> juniors  play high caliber hockey, but they really have no constituency
> at least nothing resembling the community constituency that a junior
> team in Canada might have. In Canada, the community CARES (please
> correct me if I'm wrong) about the local junior team.  In
> Massachusetts, the juniors scores aren't  even reported in the
> newspapers.
>
> What benefits "hockey" generally may benefit junior hockey and college
> hockey unequally, and in fact may hurt one or the other.  To some
> extent the fact that college hockey was in place is one of the reasons
> that it took a long time for junior hockey to get much of a foothold in
> the US.  And  to some extent the growth of junior hockey (in
> Massachusetts at least) has come at the extent of school hockey at the
> high school and prep level.  It's not out of the question to think that
> someday, the growth of junior hockey may come at the expense of college
> hockey.
>
> Clay
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
>
>