conundrumed Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 I found this topic semi-taking over the Jankowski thread in prospects so thought it deserves it's own thread. Some of the "pro"-side rhetoric has referred to applying too much hockey-influenced pressure at too young of an age, that the 1% success rate leaves 99% scrambling for life choices. Kinda-sorta, in a nutshell. The "anti" rhetoric cites labour laws and mass exodus overseas to counter. In a nutshell. The debate stems from the NHL recently assessing the case in point, but probably stems more from debating CHL vs NCAA development, in which the latter accounts for higher education and the former really doesn't. Hence, the 1% prospect that gets to play in the NHL at 18/19 vs the 99% that don't. So, in principle, do we pressure 17/18 yo's into Hockey OR Education choices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 I found this topic semi-taking over the Jankowski thread in prospects so thought it deserves it's own thread. Some of the "pro"-side rhetoric has referred to applying too much hockey-influenced pressure at too young of an age, that the 1% success rate leaves 99% scrambling for life choices. Kinda-sorta, in a nutshell. The "anti" rhetoric cites labour laws and mass exodus overseas to counter. In a nutshell. The debate stems from the NHL recently assessing the case in point, but probably stems more from debating CHL vs NCAA development, in which the latter accounts for higher education and the former really doesn't. Hence, the 1% prospect that gets to play in the NHL at 18/19 vs the 99% that don't. So, in principle, do we pressure 17/18 yo's into Hockey OR Education choices? There are no guarantees when it comes to universities either. I don't have exact stats but many US colleges and universities propagandize their 90% graduate hiring rates but reality is, a large majority of their grads settle for low paying jobs that have nothing to do with their graduate studies simply because there's not enough demand in the real world for the amount of supply created by these colleges and universities. Studying in post-secondary has more or less become a scam. Only bright spot to hockey is scholarships so these kids don't graduate with a load of debt afterwards. Make no mistake about it, it's not "do we pressure 17/18 yo's into Hockey OR Education choices". The world is not that noble when it comes to employer vs employees. The NHL wants free player development and a better idea of what player they are drafting. They want to draft players who can instantly be inserted into their NHL line-ups rather than needing 2 to 3 years of further development. They don't want to draft busts but they also don't have patience. They also don't have to spend as much money developing kids at the AHL level. The players want to make money as soon as possible. $575k minimum NHL salary as of 2016. What 18-year-old doesn't want to make $575k as soon as possible? Plus, you can't legally discriminate based on age. Yes, most kids aren't ready for the NHL but we have seen kids, even ones drafted in the second round, instantly have success in the NHL right after being drafted. It's not fair to hold those kids back because the other 99% aren't NHL ready at 18. The fans, I think most side with the NHL who want to raise the draft age. I personally don't have a problem with it. I see added benefits like how these kids will be forced to play in the CHL until 19/20 which increases the competition of the CHL and make games more worthy of watching. When the league had a lockout in 2004, kids drafted in 2003 were forced to play an extra year in Juniors and as a result, almost every player drafted in the first round of 2003 became stars in the league. I don't know, maybe they should keep the draft age at 18 but players can't play in the NHL until 20. That way, they are forced to develop properly rather than get ruined by NHL teams who rush them into the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 Before the WHA players were drafted @ 21. Their bodies were more mature & in most cases so were their minds & values. But, since 18 year olds are now considered adult in most states/provinces, rolling back the age would open a real can of worms as to lawsuits for preventing them from gainful employment due to age. I read an article a few years back about many ex-NHLers encouraging their sons to go the college route. A number of them were named but I remember Paul Stastny being 1 of them. Johnny Toews took the college route & @ 19 was ready with a WJC Gold & WC Gold on his mantle. As Peeps basically said, unless you are drafting a superstar a college player is cheap development. Unlike CHL players drafted from bad teams you get to let them ripen in good systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 Before the WHA players were drafted @ 21. Their bodies were more mature & in most cases so were their minds & values. But, since 18 year olds are now considered adult in most states/provinces, rolling back the age would open a real can of worms as to lawsuits for preventing them from gainful employment due to age. I read an article a few years back about many ex-NHLers encouraging their sons to go the college route. A number of them were named but I remember Paul Stastny being 1 of them. Johnny Toews took the college route & @ 19 was ready with a WJC Gold & WC Gold on his mantle. As Peeps basically said, unless you are drafting a superstar a college player is cheap development. Unlike CHL players drafted from bad teams you get to let them ripen in good systems. What I don't get is the lawsuit argument. There isn't a lawsuit to be had, because of a business document clearly stating the rules to it's stoutest jurisdiction. The argument that "everyone flocks overseas".....really? If it becomes the norm. Players get used to it, competition gets better, etc etc. I struggle with "17" in a draft year. Like it or not, that's a child imho. Who here had their mind made up at 17? Don't lie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjgallow Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 What I don't get is the lawsuit argument. I agree with pretty much everything FF said, quite strongly, except that my gut tells me there isn't really a legal issue to be had here. I could be wrong, and I'm not a lawyer. But the world is still full of age restrictions and they don't cause a problem now. Ie., Junior hockey has age restrictions. The NHL doesn't necesarily even have to impose their own age restrictions. It can do what it already does now with several leagues....and say the players can't be drafted until the expiry of their junior contract, for example (which would just be extended a few years). Again....not a lawyer. But if the incorrectness of this annoys any lawyers out there, by all means, state your case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.