Arthur Berman quoth:
 
>> First, a major criticism by both fans and the media of USA World Junior
>> teams over the years has been that they are nothing but a team of
>> all-stars. The majority of the media has felt that these squads are not
>> playing to win as a team; rather, they're playing to tally up points in
>> front of the scouts.
>>
>Do you know Sean Haggerty, or the other players I mentioned?  If not, you
>are making an unwarranted assumption about their character.
 
I spoke of the criticism from the media and the fans. Whether I know them
personally or not doesn't really matter, does it? In the above I merely
expressed the criticism of the MEDIA and the FANS.
 
>> I agree with this sentiment. If you take the best players available, each
>> player you bring to the team is usually (one of) the top players on his
>> home squad. An "all-star" Junior team would be a team filled with leaders;
>> given the ages of these kids, most of them do not yet have the competitive
>> maturity nor experience to shelf their egos aside and play as a team. Do
>> you really think that Sean
>> Haggerty or Jason Bonsignore would be happy about playing "under" Brian
>> Berard? Would they be able to work together, and feed off of each other's
>> skills? With very little playing time together, probably not.
>>
>ALL the players in the Junior tournament are young.  The idea that all
>the team players go to college and all the individually oriented players
>play juniors is not supported by any evidence you cite.  You're entitled
>to your opinion, but I see no evidence in your post except your comments
>on Lilley, and I'd like to know more about your source on that.
 
I NEVER said that "all the team players go to college and all the
individually oriented players play juniors." NEVER.
 
Did you read my whole post before you responded, or just flame-as-you-read?
If you had read the whole post first, you would have realized that I back
up my statements with the opinions of the press and the fans. Think about
this simple fact: in Junior hockey, there's only one reason to be there:
make the pros. In college hockey, the education is a primary reason for
most college hockey players (or so they, and most Hockey-L'ers claim). Who
do you think is going to be more concerned about their pro career? And with
all of the scouts at the WJC, they better rack up some points.
 
These ideas have been written about year after year, from Hockey-L to The
Hockey News to Sports Illustrated. During last year's WJC, I remember an
analyst on TSN reporting on the pressure of impressing the scouts, and how
it causes a large number of players each year to "underachieve" in the
tournament.
 
Whether you agree with it or not, there is a *ton* of pressure on these
kids to perform well in front of the scouts, especially the ones that were,
or will be high draft picks -- predominantly, the junior players.
 
I believe that Parker wanted a squad that wasn't as concerned with playing
well as an individual, but rather playing well as a team.
 
As for Lilley, I knew him personally, was a student at BU, worked with the
Athletic department at BU at the time of his departure, and for god's sake,
both Lilley's and Parker's statements were run in the Globe, the Herald,
and the Daily Free Press. OK?
 
>> I'm not trying to say that all these kids are puck-hogs; I'm merely
>> pointing out that Parker's main goal was to create a TEAM, not an all-start
>> squad. In any sport around the world, all-star teams have never been shown
>> to be as competent or successful as their respective league leaders. At the
>> next Winter Olympics, what team do you think would play better -- a team
>> made up of American all-star showboats, or a solid squad of American
>> players that work together?
>>
>There are plenty of "showboats" playing NCAA hockey and plenty of team
>players in Juniors (and vice versa).
 
Did I ever say there weren't showboats in the NCAA? Did I ever say there
weren't team players in the Juniors? NO.
 
My point here is that a team built up of players who work as a team will
always succeed, while "all-star" squads have difficulty working together
and often end up as a runner-up.
 
 
>> I believe the same goes for kids playing Junior hockey; that is, most of
>> these kids haven't faced serious competition. What do you think means more
>> to the team members -- winning a regular-season college game, or a junior
>> game? Factor in the college playoffs, and you've got players with more
>> experience playing "under pressure." Heck, Parker's got 3 kids on his squad
>> with last year's National Championship under their belts.
>
>There is plenty of serious competition in Junior hockey.  In Canada the
>Memorial Cup gets more coverage than the NCAA tournament does in the
>States.  It would never, for example, be preempted for golf while a game
>was in progress.
 
Remember, we're not talking about Canada here, we're talking about American
kids. You can't possibly compare American juniors and Canadian juniors.
 
Just because the Memorial Cup gets more coverage (in Canada) doesn't mean
it's more important or more revered. Let's see... ESPN showed the NCAA
Championship last year. What's that, over 140 million homes? What's the
population of Canada? 25 million? I know that the NCAA Championships gets
"pitiful" ratings, but what about the Mermorial Cup? You ask me for hard
evidence, how about some ratings figures? How do the audiences compare?
Hell, in Boston, Candlepin bowling gets higher ratings than the Bruins. But
what do you think is more important? Winning Lord Stanley's Cup, or the
mega-$25,000 candlepin jackpot?
 
But I am curious... how many kids grow up dreaming of playing for their
local Junior team and winning the Memorial Cup? Is it the same as the
countless kids that grow up wanting to play for their local colleges? If
you ask Minnesota high school hockey players, who would they rather play
for -- University of Minnesota or (the hot local Junior team escapes me,
sorry)?  Please note I'm not making an assumption here, I really am
interested to know.
 
Also... being that the juniors play many, many more games than the college
players -- which league has more "crucial" games? If a junior team goes on
a 5 game losing streak, that's not a big deal. What would happen if Maine
or Michigan suddenly went on that kind of slide? If you also think about
the tournaments that respective college teams attend -- such as the Beanpot
-- you'll see that colleges have a better ratio of "important" to "regular"
games.
 
>>
>> Parker has stated repeatedly over the years that he believes college
>> players (yes, even freshman) have more "game maturity" than their junior
>> counterparts. Prejudice or not, he does seem to have a point.
>>
>As a coach, he should have *invited* a 40 goal scorer like Haggerty.  If
>he was not a team player, he could have been cut.  My point is you don't
>select a team based on prejudice, you select by meeting people, seeing
>both their personalities and playing abilities, then make a choice.  What
>Parker did, IMO, was discrimination of the worst sort, with character
>assassination as part of the mix.
 
If you meet someone personally, watch their playing style and abilities,
and then make a judgment on them, YOU ARE EXERCISING PREJUDICE. Nobody on
this planet is free from prejudice. By your argument, Doug Woog should
never be picked as the coach of the WJC, or else he might use only
Minnesota kids.
 
If Parker had taken every available freshman and sophomore from BU, and
made the rest of the team up of New England players, then that could be
seen as "discrimination." Besides, if Parker were truly that discriminatory
against Junior players -- would he make Berard the team leader and start
Boucher in goal?
 
Plesae watch your accusations, especially something so serious.
 
>>
>> Do kids playing hockey in the USA feel the same way? Hardly. While any
>> player would be honored, excited, and very proud to play for Team USA, it's
>> not nearly the stuff of dreams that it is in Canada. Much of this is due to
>> the local media coverage, and the US fan's attitude towards the Junior
>> championships.
>
>Is what you are saying that people with Team USA have no pride?  It seems
>that is how they are playing, and how they are being run by Parker.
 
No, no, no.
 
Didn't I just say that "any player would be... very proud to play for Team USA?"
 
I'm making a comparison between the Canadian team and the American team.
Like you said, the Memorial Cup is HUGE in Canada. So is ANY hockey
tournament. Canadians take great pride in the successes of their World
Junior squads. Americans however, including most "hockey fans," don't even
notice when Team USA wins a medal.
 
>> I will concede that YES, PARKER WAS PREJUDICED. I believe however, that
>> Parker was prejudiced against attempting to coach a squad made up of
>> inflated egos, attitudes, and showboats.
>>
>Unless you have solid evidence for the above accusing people of having
>this type of (lack of) character is irresponsible at best.
 
As is usual with the English language, certain words are often treated as
"dirty," and any usage of them brings negative connotations.
 
The word "prejudiced" is such a word. It by no means signifies someone is
an awful person; one must look at what kind of prejudice is involved before
you can make judgment.
 
And god forbid Arthur, this is a DISCUSSION! Lighten up!
 
 
>> Sure, he's prejudiced about some things. Isn't everybody?
>
>For sure, but most of us are not allowed (legally or morally) to make our
>decisions in hiring based on these prejudices.  There are laws that
>address this thankfully.
 
Like affirmative action?
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.